Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

STAFFORDSHIRE BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations

Mr. Batiste: asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether, in view of the uncertainty caused by the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations, as exemplified in the recent case of Canning v. Niaz and McLoughlin, he has any plans to amend or withdraw the regulations; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): We are aware that the Employment Appeal Tribunal decision in the case of Canning v. Niaz and McLoughlin has been widely criticised and we understand that an appeal is being considered. In the circumstances we have no present plans to amend or withdraw the regulations.

Mr. Batiste: Is my hon. Friend aware that, almost from their inception, the regulations have caused a great deal of difficulty, because of their complexity, to all those concerned with the sale and transfer of business assets? It appears that the decision is denying payments to people who would ordinarily and on any logical reading of the Redundancy Payments Act 1965 be entitled to a redundancy payment. Is not urgent Government action necessary to correct the position?

Mr. Gummer: As the case is under appeal, I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that it is not possible to take such action at the moment. The Government have welcomed such protection and we wish to make it as simple as possible. In the circumstances, we must await the outcome of the appeal.

Labour Statistics

Mr. Ralph Howell: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is his latest estimate of the percentage of the unemployed who are actively seeking employment.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Tom King): The labour force survey 1981 showed that about

83 per cent. of those registered as unemployed were actively seeking work. The results of the 1983 survey will be available during the second quarter of 1984.

Mr. Howell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a great many of those who are unemployed simply cannot afford to work because of the "Why work?" problem and the poverty trap? Will my right hon. Friend make an urgent study of this problem, as people with modest families are sometimes £12 a week worse off when working than when they are not?

Mr. King: I am aware of my hon. Friend's long-term interest in this problem. He will recognise the difficulty of striking a fair balance, because, as hon. Members on both sides of the House will recognise, in many parts of the country many people are desperately anxious to work but cannot get jobs, and nobody wishes to see people in that situation being deprived of a reasonable level of benefit. To strike the balance is difficult, but I note what my hon. Friend says.

Mr. Alton: Is the Secretary of State aware that in the city of Liverpool more than 91,000 people are registered as unemployed and that just over 2,000 jobs are available? In one employment office, 16,000 people are registered as unemployed and only 200 jobs are available. The United Biscuits works in the area made a further 2,000 people redundant last week. What are the chances of those people finding fresh employment?

Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the past two months are the first two consecutive months since 1979 in which we have seen a fall in the headline total and in the seasonally adjusted level of unemployment, and an increase in the level of vacancies over the previous quarter. The improvement is small, but I recognise, as the hon. Gentleman does, some of the special problems of Liverpool. I must however say, speaking frankly, that Liverpool and some of its people have not always been their own best friends in trying to attract industry and employment to that city. I am aware of the serious problems facing Liverpool. The Government are anxious to see an improvement in the economy and the chance of real jobs for so many people in that city.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that the only solution to the problem of providing incentives to re-enter work lies in a tax credit or basic income guarantee scheme that would wind up the present national insurance scheme and integrate it completely with income tax? Will he undertake to study such a scheme?

Mr. King: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's latter sentence, because I know him far too well to try, in one sentence, to respond to his carefully thought out ideas and strategems. I take note of his request.

Mr. John Evans: Quite apart from the fact that many hundreds of thousands of people are desperately anxious to find work but cannot obtain it, will the Minister address his mind to what the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Howell) described as the "Why work?" syndrome. Does he accept that if the Government implement their policy of reducing housing benefits many hundreds of thousands of workers on low pay will be affected even more by the "Why work?" syndrome?

Mr. King: As the hon. Gentleman knows, that does not arise on this question.

Wage Rates

Mr. Nellist: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the percentage decline in the ratio of young people's wages to adult wages for (a) boys and (b) girls over the period 1979 to 1983; and if he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Alan Clark): The earnings of boys relative to men fell by 8 per cent., and those of girls relative to women fell by 12 per cent. between April 1979 and April 1983.

Mr. Nellist: Does the Minister agree that those figures demonstrate that since the Government took office they have managed to co-ordinate a campaign to drive down the general level of wages for youngsters? Why did the hon. Gentleman allow the Chancellor of the Exchequer to steal £55 million from the YTS allowances in the Department of Employment budget, which sum could have been used to increase the allowance by £3·50 over the present £25, and thus stop the rot of the reduction in youngsters' wages?

Mr. Clark: I completely reject the hon. Gentleman's statement. It is perfectly natural that youngsters who have just left school should command less pay. Employers will not recruit inexperienced and untrained youngsters in a slack labour market unless there is an incentive to do so.

Mr. Budgen: Will my hon. Friend warmly commend the wise young people who have accepted lower relative wages to price themselves into work? When will the Government repeal the minimum wage legislation, which so cruelly causes unemployment?

Mr. Clark: My hon. Friend is right, but we are bound by the conventions of the ILO to observe the rulings of wages councils until they can be reviewed. The fact that the lower youngsters' wages are the more likely they are to find jobs is demonstrable to anyone with common sense. It is especially apparent in West Germany, where both wages and youth unemployment are much lower.

Integrated Training Scheme

Mr. Gareth Wardell: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will take steps to introduce an integrated training scheme for all 16 to 19-year-olds.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Peter Morrison): The youth training scheme is a major step forward in training the country's future work force. We share the general view of employers and others concerned with the scheme that more experience is needed of its operation before a proper assessment can be made of the need for major changes in coverage.

Mr. Wardell: In view of the memorandum submitted to the NEDC by the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission on 21 October stating the need for a sustained effort to develop closer links between the YTS and colleges of further education, and, as many such colleges are threatened with closure, what liaison does the Minister have with the Secretary of State for Education and Science to ensure that education and training are adequately linked and catered for?

Mr. Morrison: I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is close co-operation between me and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. Colleges

of further education supply much of the further training provided under the youth training scheme. The hon. Gentleman will recall that the technical and vocational education initiative links the two closely.

Mr. Couchman: Will my hon. Friend enter into negotiations with employers and trade unions to see whether they will accept that the YTS should become an alternative to the old time-serving apprenticeships and replace them?

Mr. Morrison: As my hon. Friend will appreciate, one objective of the new training initiative is that old-fashioned apprenticeships should be changed and we should aim for standards instead of time served. The youth training scheme fits closely into that proposal.

Mr. Rowe: Is my hon. Friend aware that in my constituency the link between the youth training scheme and the colleges has been widely welcomed and is being imaginatively used, and that the colleges want an assurance that the scheme will not be tinkered with until they have had a chance to make it work?

Mr. Morrison: I am aware that in Kent, as in many other counties, there is close co-operation between the local education authority and the Manpower Services Commission. I agree with him that we should not move hastily, because we wish to learn from the experience of how the scheme is operating. It is too early to do so after only two or three months.

Mr. Hardy: Does the Minister accept that in many parts of Britain the number of youngsters on the YTS scheme greatly exceeds the number of those in the same age group who have entered normal employment? Therefore, will he ensure that there is urgent consideration of what will happen next autumn?

Mr. Morrison: As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, in some parts of Britain the numbers are below the profile, which was introduced because we expected that fewer people would obtain jobs. We must make different assessments for each part of Britain, but it seems that more youngsters are finding jobs than we originally anticipated.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: If 17-year-olds are too old for the youth training scheme and too young for the community programme, what should 17-year-olds do in an area of unemployment such as west Cumbria?

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman will know that the scheme is available to unemployed 17-year-olds. The Manpower Services Commission and the Youth Training Board may propose that the scheme should include 17-year-old employed school leavers, and they must reach a decision on this at their December meeting.

Mr. Sheerman: Does the Minister accept that although the YTS is seen by many Opposition Members as an imperfect but useful stop-gap, the Government should consider urgently what will happen by next June or next autumn? Does he accept that plans should now be laid for proper training for all 16 to 19-year-olds?

Mr. Morrison: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for saying that this is a useful scheme. I agree with him that uncertainty must be removed as soon as possible.

Mr. John Smith: He said that it was a stop-gap.

Mr. Morrison: The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) said that the hon. Member


for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) used the words "stopgap". He also used the word "useful", and I am grateful for his compliments about the scheme. I agree with him that uncertainty is not healthy for the future of the scheme, and the Government will make a decision as soon as possible.

Labour Statistics

Mr. Dormand: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total number of people unemployed, and, of those, how many have been unemployed for more than 12 months to the latest available date.

Mr. Tom King: The number of unemployed claimants in the United Kingdom was 3,084,416, and the number unemployed for more than 52 weeks was 1,142,898. Both of those are United Kingdom figures at the latest available date.

Mr. Dormand: Is not the number of long-term unemployed the biggest indictment of the Government's disastrous economic policies? If the Minister regards the piffling reduction in unemployment during the past two months as a success, will he estimate how long it will take the Government to reduce unemployment to the level at which it stood when they took office? What is he doing to meet the CBI's objections to the Government's policies?

Mr. King: The number of unemployed is an indictment of the serious lack of competitiveness in British industry which has existed for far too long, and to which the Labour party made a major contribution by ignoring it and leaving to the teeth of a recession the worst problem and threat to employment in Britain. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the encouraging signs. He may know that I recently visited the Northern region and checked on the latest available figures for Newcastle, which show that this year placings into employment are 30 per cent. higher than they were last year. [Interruption]—I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman reacts like that, because I should have thought he would welcome such an improvement.

Sir Dudley Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the problem of unemployment is endemic throughout Europe? Is he further aware that the range of measures adopted by the Government to fight the serious problem are as good as, if not better than, those adopted by other countries?

Mr. King: I assumed—I apologise if I have failed the House—that Opposition Members at last understood the fact which my hon. Friend mentioned, which is that our problem is common throughout the Western world and in modern industrialised society. The Government have taken several measures, the most important results of which are the reduction in inflation and the control of public expenditure, to ensure that at last we have a real prospect of sustaining growth.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: Will the Minister accept that, pro rata, a much greater proportion of the scandalous long-term unemployment figures that he has spelt out is to be seen in the Northern region? When is he discussing regional policy in the Cabinet, will he bear that in mind?

Mr. King: I am aware of the serious problem faced by the Northern region. I am also aware, as is any other hon.

Member, and certainly the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Brown), of some of the long-tern and intractable industrial problems of the Northern region and the failure to resolve them, which has contributed significantly to the present problem of unemployment in that region.

Mrs. Rumbold: Is my hon. Friend aware of the many people in my constituency who are interested in knowing the number of employed and also in knowing whether that number is increasing?

Mr. King: I am pleased to say that in the last quarter there was an increase in the number of people at work, the first increase in a quarter for a long time. That is in contrast to the situation in other countries, which are unfortunately experiencing quite the opposite phenomenon.

Mr. John Smith: Is the Secretary of State aware that when over 1 million people are classed as long-term unemployed, the question that arises is how we do social justice to them. Is not the time overdue when the long-term unemployed should get paid the long-term rate of social security benefit, such as the Government's Social Security Advisory Committee recommended? Is this not a simple moral question, and not a political and economic decision?

Mr. King: As the hon. Gentleman knows, this is not a matter for me. I have seen the early-day motion, and I hear what he says.

Equal Pay

Ms. Richardson: asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects the Equal Pay for Work of Equal Value Order to become operative.

Mr. Alan Clark: The order, which was approved in another place yesterday, has now been signed and will become operative on 1 January.

Ms. Richardson: Does the Minister realise that this complex, inadequate order has been opposed not only by women's organisations, including the Equal Opportunities Commission, but by the legal profession, and last night, in effect, by the other place? There was a vote on this issue, and the opposition to the order was carried by a few votes. Does that not make a difference to the Government's thinking about the order? Principally, does the hon. Gentleman understand that this shows to the country the Government's unwillingness to introduce, in a decent and simple fashion, the concept of equal pay for equal value for low-paid women? Would it not be better to withdraw the order and support the Sex Equality Bill this Friday?

Mr. Clark: I look forward to the hon. Lady's presentation of her Bill on Friday. However, I reject what she said in the last part of her question. The Government are committed to the principle of equal rights and it is wrong to say that the other place rejected the order, because it voted for it. The amendment, in so far as it was critical, related to the way in which we conform to our European obligations. I can say categorically that I am advised that in the terms of the order we conform to our European obligations.

Unemployed Young Persons (Training)

Mr. Stan Thorne: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will take steps to promote the training


of the long-term young unemployed in order to provide them with the high technology skills necessary in the late 1980s.

Mr. Peter Morrison: The Government are currently supporting over 5,000 places in information technology centres and sponsors under the youth training scheme are encouraged to provide training in computer literacy. Opportunities are also available under the training opportunities programme and threshold scheme.

Mr. Thorne: Will the Secretary of State argue in the Cabinet for economic policies that will produce real jobs for young people?

Mr. Morrison: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman puts the question in the way that he does when talking about technology, when he knows that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State argued in favour of information technology centres and that there is one in his own constituency, which I opened only a few months ago.

Mr. Robert Atkins: Does my hon. Friend recognise that the centre operating in Preston is doing a good job, bearing in mind that there is a great demand in Fylde and Preston for high technology graduates and students, and that the more resources that can be put towards that the better?

Mr. Morrison: I agree with my hon. Friend, and it was apparent to me when I visited the centre at Preston that not only were employers pleased that it was there, but so, too, were the trainees, who were benefiting substantially from the taxpayers' resources that are being used in that way.

Mr. Penhaligon: Does the Minister believe that the answer that he gave, in a technical state, represents sufficient input by the state in maintaining the level of skills required for the technical battles in which our country will clearly be involved with the rest of Europe and the world over the next 30 or 40 years?

Mr. Morrison: As the hon. Gentleman is probably aware, there are plans for 150 information technology centres throughout the country, and 100 have already opened. At 1982–83 prices, the difference between 1979 and 1983 means that we have more than doubled the budget.

Mr. Sheerman: Will the Minister consider uprating the funding given to local authority managing agents so that it is comparable to that of the private sector managing agents, so that they can do a better job in high technology?

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman will understand that the managing agents come from both the private and public sectors, and it would be wrong to give the public sector distinct advantages over the private sector.

Training Programmes

Mr. Lofthouse: asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he will next meet the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission to discuss training and re-training programmes.

Mr. Tom King: I am in frequent contact with the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission to discuss the commission's training and other programmes.

Mr. Lofthouse: It is obvious that the Minister will not give any firm assurances, but will he at least not rule out

the possibility of further training for young people leaving YTS at the end of the year with no hope of getting real jobs?

Mr. King: That is not true, in that there is evidence of an increasing number of young people getting jobs—clearly one of the reasons for the shortfall in the take-up of places on the YTS. I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman was making.

Sir Peter Mills: Will my right hon. Friend have a chat with the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission about finance for some of these programmes and remind him that it is extremely embarrassing for Members of Parliament to go round promoting these schemes, only to find that the money is not available? To say the least, I am very annoyed.

Mr. King: I am grateful that my hon. Friend is saying the least on this occasion. I understand the effort which he and a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House have put into what has become a completely successful expansion of the community programme. He will know that we have a problem of the programme expanding much faster than the budgeted figures allowed for, but I have been able to provide additional resources this year. Whereas we budgeted £370 million for this year, we are providing £570 million for next year, and I am determined to see that the programme makes a major contribution. I hope that once it has been checked it will still be possible to see some further development this year.

Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: Will the Secretary of State reconsider his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse), because in my constituency of Coventry, North-West, of the 4,000 places under the YTS, fewer than 2,000 have been taken up? Far from youth unemployment decreasing, it is increasing and is at an all-time high. Does that not show the lack of credibility of the whole programme, and what is the Minister going to do about it?

Mr. King: I hope that in anything that the hon. Member asks me he can stand up and say what he is doing, because he is the constituency Member of Parliament. If he is saying that youth unemployment among that age group is increasing and that there are available places on the youth training scheme, I hope that he is playing his part to encourage young people to go on the scheme. When I go round the country, I am impressed to find on the YTS a number of people whom the employers hope to keep in permanent jobs at the end of their training.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he is right to say that the opportunities are there if young people seek to pick them up, but that at the end of the year there will be a real problem in providing training on an apprenticeship basis, and that what we now need is a follow up to the YTS and more apprentices able to take part in long-term training, because industries are cutting back on apprenticeships?

Mr. King: That has been the case, and I am seized of the importance of the point that my hon. Friend makes. I have recently issued a challenge to industry to ensure that, as we now see an improvement in the economy and in the profit performance of industry, we can expect to see an improvement in investment, and one of the most important investments that industry can make is in the training of its skilled work force.

Enterprise Allowance

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many people now qualify for the enterprise allowance.

Mr. Marlow: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the progress of the enterprise allowance scheme.

Mr. Alan Clark: On 15 November some 16,300 people were receiving the enterprise allowance. Of these, about 1,500 had joined the pilot scheme operating prior to the national extension on 1 August 1983. The response has been very encouraging and we have decided to extend the scheme beyond March 1984. Finance is being made available for a further 35,000 grants next year to add to the 25,000 in the current year.

Mr. Carlisle: I thank my hon. Friend for that interesting information. Does it not show that the enterprise allowance is fast becoming one of the Government's most effective schemes to combat unemployment? However, will my hon. Friend accept that the rule under which the participant has to put down £1,000 stops some useful ideas and businesses from being launched? Will he revise that rule—and certainly not increase the sum?

Mr. Clark: I thank my hon. Friend for what he says. He is, of course, right when he says that the enterprise allowance, alone of the special employment measures, generates new jobs as well as taking people off the unemployment register. In answer to what my hon. Friend says about the £1,000 commitment, we think that it is reasonable to ask people to make a certain personal financial commitment. When a realistic business enterprise is suggested, we find that there is no difficulty in getting the money from bankers.

Mr. Marlow: Is it not the case that not only does this excellent scheme give an opportunity to people who otherwise would not have it, giving them the dignity of self-employment, but it is also an exceptionally good investment for the taxpayer, because within a short period of time the person who goes on to the scheme becomes self-sufficient and starts paying taxes, rather than being dependent on the dole?

Mr. Clark: That is quite true. Recent surveys show that for every 100 new enterprises that are created about 40 additional jobs are created alongside them. Some of those are part-time, some are full-time. With a three-quarter survival rate of the enterprises taking part in the scheme, we hope effectively to double the number of applicants and thus increase the number of people taken off the unemployment register.

Ms. Clare Short: Is the Minister aware that when there is insufficient demand in the economy some new small businesses thrive and others die, and that many small enterprises are opposed to the scheme because they are threatened by it? Is he further aware that we cannot make more jobs in the economy without reflating and creating more demand?

Mr. Clark: I find that an extraordinary argument. We are talking about new businesses being generated by the individual enterprise of people who are prepared, in many cases, to stop taking unemployment benefit or who draw

less than they are entitled to under unemployment benefit. Plainly, that must be to the general advantage of industrial activity in this country.

Mr. Favell: Does the Minister accept that an added benefit of the scheme is that it takes people out of the black economy?

Mr. Clark: Certainly I have heard rumours about that. However, it is perhaps best enlarged on by my right lion. Friends at the Treasury.

Mr. Meadowcroft: If the scheme is a success, will the Minister commend to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services similar schemes with a high disregard of income before social security benefits are lost, so as to take more people out of the black economy?

Mr. Clark: I do not see how that question arises.

Youth Training Scheme

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has detected any trends of regional imbalance in regard to the operation of the youth training scheme; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Peter Morrison: Take-up of places on the youth training scheme has varied between regions. I am satisfied that there are now sufficient places available to meet the needs of eligible young people throughout Great Britain this year, and I am confident that the undertaking to offer a place to all unemployed 16-year-old school leavers by Christmas will be met.

Mr. Adley: In welcoming the success of the scheme in the south-west, and particularly in the Dorset and Somerset area, may I ask my hon. Friend nevertheless to confirm that in areas where the take-up has been inadequate it is open to his Department to apply to the Treasury to have funds put aside for the YTS to be made available to the community programme which, as he will have heard from my hon. friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Sir P. Mills), is causing some anguish around the country? Is that correct? Has he already applied, and if not, will he consider doing so?

Mr. Morrison: No doubt my hon. Friend heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Sir P. Mills), make clear the position on the community programme. Certainly, if there is an underspend on the youth training scheme my right hon. Friend and I will take it into account in dealing with the community programme.

Mr. Leighton: I congratulate the three Ministers who have been answering all these questions, but will the Minister of State explain why his hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), has not helped them in their task?

Mr. Morrison: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his congratulations. It is not something that often happens, and it is received in the spirit in which it was given. The hon. Gentleman will know that my hon. Friend the Minister of State was sitting in Committee all morning — [Interruption] — and he will shortly be answering further questions. On the last occasion when we dealt with Employment questions he answered far more than I did.

Mr. Latham: Is my hon. Friend aware that if the underspend on the YTS is not used soon it will be taken back by the Treasury? Will he ensure that between now and the end of the financial year it is given either to 17-year-olds and 18-year-olds who are in training, or to the community programme?

Mr. Morrison: My hon. Friend will have heard both myself and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State say that there is clearly an interaction between the two programmes. As my hon. Friend will also be aware, if we were to change the eligibility rules for the youth training scheme this year we would need to have regard to the number of entrants that we expect for next year. We have to take that into account in the equation.

Unemployment (Havering)

Mr. Squire: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the rate of unemployment at the latest available date in the Havering travel-to-work area.

Mr. Gummer: The Department does not calculate percentage rates of unemployment for local areas within London. The rate for Greater London as a whole on 10 November was 9·8 per cent.

Mr. Squire: I welcome my hon. Friend to the Dispatch Box and thank him for his answer. Is he aware that more school leavers in Havering have found work more quickly than was the case last year? In endorsing what my hon. Friend said a moment ago, and underlining the commitment to employment for 16-year-olds by Christmas, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he is aware that that commitment is certain to be met in Havering—indeed, we have an embarrassment of places on the YTS?

Mr. Gummer: In fact, the situation is a little better than it was. However, that should not blind us to the very real unemployment problem. The Government's policies are the most likely to achieve the fall in unemployment that we want. That is the answer that I would have given to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry), whose question, due for answer earlier today, was withdrawn.

Employment Trends

Mr. Hoyle: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will take steps to publish estimated employment trends for November 1983 to November 1984.

Mr. Tom King: I do not propose to do so.

Mr. Hoyle: Is it because the Secretary of State has no confidence in the Government's policies to control or lower unemployment that he will not give that information? Does it not show that it will not only be a bleak Christmas, but a bleak 1984 for the country?

Mr. King: I suppose that the hon. Gentleman could ask his right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) whether that was why he did not publish the figures either. It is not a helpful exercise, and I believe that it would only be misleading. I have done it once myself and sought to forecast unemployment, and I know the difficulties that are involved.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Although I fully accept my right hon. Friend's explanation about why he will not

estimate future unemployment, will he accept that the Government's failure to act on industrial rates, and the announcement of their intention to force the energy industries—gas and electricity—to put up their prices, are hardly conducive to making industry more competitive? I use the phrase that my right hon. Friend used a moment ago. Unless we are more competitive, unemployment is scarcely likely to come down. Will he make representations to the Secretary of State?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That supplementary question was too long.

Mr. King: What my hon. Friend says obviously does not arise on this question. However, I cannot emphasise too strongly the importance of competitiveness and of Britain earning its living in the world. I note that the question was asked by the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle). His failure to denounce the recent events in Warrington hardly helps to improve employment prospects in this country.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: When will my constituents have the opportunity of full-time employment?

Mr. King: That is a question which the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent(Mr. Foot), who presided over the first substantial increase in unemployment, both short term and long term, was unable to answer. I believe that for the first time we can see a real prospect of more people in real jobs. I believe also that there is a prospect of a reduction in long-term unemployment. I hope that the whole House will welcome that.

Youth Training Scheme

Mr. Greenway: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many young people were on youth training schemes on 1 September, 1 October and 1 November, respectively; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Peter Morrison: By 1 September, 1 October and 1 November respectively about 86,000, 172,000 and 230,000 youngsters were on the youth training scheme. The response by employers, local authorities and trades unions to the scheme and the number of youngsters now in training are clear indications of the encouraging progress to date.

Mr. Greenway: I warmly welcome the improving figures and congratulate my hon. Friend on achieving them. Will he and his Department go into battle with the Treasury and ascertain whether underspending on the youth training scheme can be transferred to the MSC scheme? As has already been suggested, I believe that the sum outstanding in the current year is £60 million. That would go a long way to achieving the aims of the projected community programme.

Mr. Morrison: My hon. Friend will appreciate that it is always difficult to predict exactly how much money is being spent in a demand-led programme. There were about 284,000 YTS entrants by 1 December. I think that I have already made my position clear about a transfer from the YTS to the community programme.

Mr. Ashley: Why has the Minister downgraded the youth training scheme? He has already told the House that the allowance is intended to meet travelling costs and other expenses and to reflect the benefit of the scheme.


However, the allowance is now frozen at £25 while costs are rising. Does this mean that in logic the Government are undervaluing the scheme and downgrading it?

Mr. Morrison: I regret to say that I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman. We believe £25 to be the right amount for YTS youngsters. If he accompanied me on my visits to many of the schemes he would find that many of the youngsters take exactly the same view. We are considering travelling costs.

Mr. Sheerman: Will the Minister explain why the London undershoot is as high as 48 per cent.? Surely this is a clear indication that the allowance is not enough, especially in high-cost areas.

Mr. Morrison: There is no evidence that the hon. Gentleman's proposition is correct. In fact, the evidence suggests the reverse.

Labour Statistics

Mr. Skinner: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest figures for unemployment, both nationally and regionally; and what were the comparable figures for 1979.

Mr. Alan Clark: On 10 December 1983 the number of unemployed claimants in the United Kingdom was 3,084,416. The corresponding estimated number for November 1979 was 1,258,700. I will, with permission, circulate the regional figures in the Official Report.

Mr. Skinner: Now that the mini pre-election boom is over, does the Minister accept that cuts in housing benefits and other factors will produce the prospect of unemployment rising again in 1984? Why is it that he and his colleagues can claim credit for a tiny decrease in unemployment but when unemployment rises, as it undoubtedly will next year, they are able to blame the increase on lack of competitiveness, trade unions and anyone bar themselves?

Mr. Clark: The hon. Gentleman sets his opinion against that of other experts. The latest indicators suggest that unemployment is levelling out. The hon. Gentleman knows that vacancies at jobcentres have doubled. He knows also that unemployment is not a uniquely national characteristic. There are over 20 million unemployed in OECD countries. The only route to full employment is full order books, and the Government's policies are directed to achieving that end.

Following is the information:


Unemployed claimants (including school leavers and not seasonally adjusted)



November 1979 (Estimates)
November 1983


South-East
243,200
725,382


East Anglia
29,000
75,588


South-West
88,600
189,961


West Midlands
119,700
343,587


East Midlands
68,400
183,625


Yorkshire and Humberside
110,900
283,357


North-West
182,800
436,743


North
111,900
224,749


Wales
78,300
168,456


Scotland
166,700
333,220


Great Britain
1,199,100
2,964,668


Northern Ireland
59,700
119,748


United Kingdom
1,258,700
3,084,416

Low Wages

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what action he proposes to deal with the variation in the incidence of low wages in different parts of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Gummer: Pay levels do, of course, vary between different parts of the country. What we must ensure is that unrealistic wage levels do not affect job prospects.

Mr. Canavan: What will the hon. Gentleman do about the recent low pay unit report, which suggests that about three quarters of Scottish workers are being paid below what should be the legal minimum regulation wage? The Government are hell-bent on using statutory legislation against workers in Stockport and elsewhere. Why do they not use the available statutory legislation to increase the size of the Wages inspectorate and to introduce greater enforcement of minimum wages legislation on low-paying employers, who are paying employees less than the statutory living wage? Why are the Government doing this?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That was a very long question.

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman must accept that pay and jobs can be found only if we produce goods and sell them at a cost that the customer is prepared to pay. Those are the only circumstances in which we can achieve that which the hon. Gentleman desires. In so far as I can detect any meaning in the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, that must be the answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Donald Stewart: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 6 December.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend is returning from a meeting of the European Council in Athens.

Mr. Stewart: In the light of the virtually unanimous expression of opinion from every part of the House yesterday on the Lebanon, and in view of the suggestions of a joint Israeli/United States attack on Syria, IA ill the right hon. Gentleman represent to his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that the whole issue could be defused and people brought to their senses by the immediate withdrawal of the British force from the Lebanon?

Mr. Biffen: I shall do as the right hon. Gentleman suggests and draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to his point. I am sure he will appreciate that at Athens one of the topics covered was the Lebanon, and that will feature in the report that my right hon. Friend will be making to the House tomorrow.

Mr. Kinnock: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the obvious concern that exists in all parts of the House over the fact that our troops are being unjustifiably endangered in Beirut because of American policies which Her Majesty's Government cannot control, influence, or, it appears, agree with? Will he, from his position of influence, work to ensure that British troops are home from the Lebanon by Christmas?

Mr. Biffen: No one who was present in the House yesterday afternoon could not be aware of the widespread anxiety that exists about our troops in the Lebanon. That is something that does not need to be represented to the Government because the Government share that anxiety, sharing as they do the responsibility for the presence of our troops in the Lebanon. The position of the troops is under constant review and that review will take account of the events that happen day by day, including recent events concerning the Americans and the Syrians. As I have said, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be reporting to the House tomorrow following the Athens discussions. As they covered the Lebanon, I think that it will be appropriate for us also to have in mind my right hon. Friend's report.

Mr. Kinnock: I am encouraged by the news that there is a review, which represents a significant shift from the position that was taken by the Under-Secretary of State yesterday. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure me that, in the course of the review, due weight will be attached to the attitudes of the British people on this matter, as they are widely represented in the House? I remind the right hon. Gentleman of his words to me last Tuesday, in the hope that they will assist with the review. He said:
It is in the nature of our authority"—
that is Britain's authority—
that we have to secure it largely through influencing the alliances to which we belong." — [Official Report, 29 November 1983; Vol. 49, c. 762.]
If the review does not conclude with the withdrawal of the British troops, what authority, what influence, and, in terms of the Lebanon, what real alliance?

Mr. Biffen: This is a serious matter, which commands attention throughout the House. I am certain that the right hon. Gentleman would not wish to make mischief over it, because there is nothing in what I have said this afternoon that is in contradistinction to what was said yesterday afternoon by my hon. Friend, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Public opinion is one of the factors that must influence any Government. I am certain that the sombre mood in the House yesterday afternoon was but a dimension of public opinion.

Mr. Holt: Did my right hon. Friend hear the report this morning by the BBC correspondent, Christopher Drake, who has had more first-hand experience of the Lebanon during the past few months than any hon. Member? He said that it would be an utter disaster for the British forces to be withdrawn at this stage and that their continued presence in the Lebanon was the most stabilising factor in keeping the peace in that area.

Mr. Biffen: I did not hear that radio report, but it is true that the modest British force has a responsibility to protect the Ceasefire Commission, and it has been discharging that duty with great distinction. It has earned the support of many countries in the middle east, including Syria.

Mr. Roy Hughes: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 6 December.

Mr. Biffen: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hughes: Has there been any change in Government policy regarding American bases in this country? I heard a report that parts of cruise missiles were

coming into Britain via Barry docks for storage at Caerwent. When I took this matter up with the Ministry of Defence I was informed by Lord Trefgarne that he could not even attempt to answer the question. Previously, we were reassured that there was no nuclear presence at Caerwent. Will the Lord Privy Seal shed some light on the matter, as it is causing anxiety?

Mr. Biffen: I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman wants illuminated, but I assure him that British policy over the bases of our NATO allies remains unchanged, as does our desire that this country should remain a part of NATO and our determination that we should not succumb to the blandishments of the unilateralists and the neutralists.

Mr. Tracey: Did my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal hear, or read the transcript, of the interview yesterday with the editor of The Sunday Times on BBC radio about the arm-twisting employed by the National Graphical Association on that editor's newspaper over the weekend? Does he agree that the cuts imposed on the editorial in that newspaper represent a serious threat to freedom of speech, and where will it all end?

Mr. Biffen: Again, I must disappoint another of my hon. Friends by saying that I did not have the opportunity of hearing that broadcast. Any attempt to impose cuts on editorials would be deprecated throughout the House.

Mr. Barnett: Do the Government still hold the view that the Americans in Beirut are acting in self-defence?

Mr. Biffen: As my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office said yesterday, the recent attack on the Syrian positions was deemed to be an act of self-defence on the part of the Americans.

Mr. Beith: Do the Government intend to ignore the defeat that they suffered yesterday in another place on an amended motion declaring that the Equal Pay (Amendment) Regulations 1983 did not meet the requirements of the European Court of Justice or the European Community?

Mr. Biffen: That action will be considered along with the Government's other pressing problems.

Mr. Straw: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 6 December.

Mr. Biffen: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Straw: I return to the subject of Lebanon. Have the British Government been informed of the nature of the agreement made last week between the United States and Israel? If so, what are its terms?

Mr. Biffen: I am not in a position to answer that question, and therefore will not seek to do so.

Mr. Soames: In view of the objections to the use of self-defence by the Americans, will my right hon. Friend confirm that, in the event of our troops being attacked, air power will be available to us?

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend makes a fair point that needs to be made.

Mr. Faulds: Is any Member of the Government in a position to say whether the British Government were consulted before the Americans drew up their new strategic agreement with Israel?

Mr. Biffen: I have no doubt that the normal arrangements that exist between the allies were pursued, but, as I said to the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), I am not in a position to answer that question and will not, therefore, attempt to do so.

Mr. Amery: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the murder of nearly 300 American marines by forces supported by the Syrian Government left the Americans no alternative? Will he also assure the House that if British forces suffer any casualties we will hit back just as hard? [Interruption.] Does he agree that any talk of withdrawing from the multinational force at this stage would create a gratuitous rift in the only alliance on which peace depends?

Mr. Biffen: Any retaliatory action undertaken by British forces in that part of the middle east must be related to the military potential at their command. We would be unwise to think otherwise. The wider issue of the multinational force must be under constant review and consideration by the allies working in concert. The meeting on Thursday of the Foreign Ministers involved with the multinational force will be the occasion for the next exchanges.

Mr. Marlow: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 6 December.

Mr. Biffen: I have beenasked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend advise the Camden Women Against Cruise who decided recently at a meeting of the Kentish Town Women's Workshop that it would ambark upon a policy of flashing at Greenham Common, not to bother and to watch instead the film "The Day After" so that it might realise that the main reason why such a disaster has not been inflicted on these islands during the past 40 years is that we have had an independent nuclear deterrent?

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend's advice is well-directed. I am sure that there would be much merit in those women watching "The Day After", as they would then realise what

we are seeking to deter, and would conclude that in the post-war generation the world had been preserved from nuclear warfare.

Mr. Leadbitter: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the trial for high treason in South Africa of Commodore Dieter Gerhardt is being held in camera on the pretext that what will be revealed will be embarrassing to certain Western countries? Is he further aware that the commodore visited Gibraltar, had contacts with naval intelligence personnel and had considerable influence in Simonstown, where our naval vessels were being refuelled? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that at the height of the Falklands incident Exocet missiles were being transported from Cape Town to Argentina? Given the United Kingdom's interest in this matter, will the right hon. Gentleman discuss with the Prime Minister the need to refer it to the Security Commission?

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman makes a detailed allegation which deserves to be treated seriously. I understand that it was concluded that the gentleman in question was in possession of only very low grade information, but I shall refer that point to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Mr. Fox: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 6 December.

Mr. Biffen: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Fox: Is my right hon. Friend aware that CND has re-stated its policy of British withdrawal from NATO? Does he agree that that is just the sort of action calculated to give aid and comfort to its friends in the Communist countries?

Mr. Biffen: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. If CND's policy goes beyond weapons and to the wider foreign policy issues and seeks to take Britain out of the Alliance, which has been the cornerstone of security for the post-war generation, the public will realise that CND means neutralism and unilateralism.

Companies (Political Contributions)

Mr. Austin Mitchell: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to limit political donations by companies so that such donations are paid by assenting shareholders in proportion to the size of their shareholdings and to regulate the method of payment; and for connected purposes.
The Bill is designed to put company political contributions on the same basis as trade union contributions in order to ensure that what is sauce for the employee goose is also sauce for the employer gander and to bring the swan song of any possibility of imputations of the purchase of honours.

Mr. Allen McKay: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you noticed, Mr. Speaker, the number of Conservative Members leaving the Chamber because of the motion for the introduction of the Bill?

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members frequently leave the Chamber after Prime Minister's Questions.

Mr. Mitchell: It is my personal view that political parties should be helped by the state, because neither the political system nor the electoral system would work without political parties. Their role is vital and they should not be forced to depend for financial help on the vested interests which will always want—and sometimes get—a quo pro quid. Until the day comes when they can obtain financial help from the state, we can only provide for equal treatment and full accountability. At present equal treatment and full accountability do not exist.
Company donations to political parties are decided by chairmen and oligarchies of directors, who can hardly be said to be accountable for their decision to shareholders. Some contributions may not even be declared to the shareholders, because there is no enforcement procedure under the Companies Act 1967. If a shareholder objects to a donation, he is forced into the impossible position of fighting his own company and campaigning against it in order to change that decision. There is a strong possibility that company political donations may be ultra vires, because they have never been authorised by a court, and most companies do not have express power to make contributions to political parties.
I therefore propose that companies' donations shall be permitted only when authorised by a ballot of shareholders. It is, after all, the shareholders' money that is being handed out in this fashion. That ballot should be repeated at regular intervals, for instance, every 10 years. The ballot should authorise the setting up of a company political fund which is financed by deductions from the dividends of those shareholders who do not opt out of the donation. Those who did not opt out would pay tax on their donation to a political party as if it were a distributed dividend. In other words, the donation would be treated like a union subscription, which comes out of post-tax income.
This proposal would bring us into line with American practice, where companies cannot make political donations. It would also mean that the whole procedure would be above board, because it will be supervised by the registrar of companies. It guarantees that everyone not

only knows what he is giving but consents to it. That is a vital precaution when 30 per cent. of the equity of quoted companies is owned by pension funds.
It is monstrous that pension funds should be forced, as they are at present, to make political donations. For money that should be theirs to be given away by the companies in which they invest conflicts with the duty of trustees to maximise the income for their pensioners. Equally importantly, the measure will cast light on an area that is at present dark and obscure. Where there is such ignorance, it can be implied that undesirable practices are going on. Indeed, that imputation becomes particularly striking when it is noted—as the independent Labour research department found—that a comparison of eight honours lists with the donations made to the Conservative party shows a correlation between generosity to the Conservative party and the conferring of honours.
There are, after all, only three possible arguments for companies giving money to the Conservative party. The first is the fear that the nasty Labour party will come in and nationalise the firm. Of course, that is only a bogy to frighten the timorous. It is a sort of political halloween lantern, because it has hardly been meaningful for the past 10 years or more. The second argument is that business will do better under the Tories. However, that is absolutely wrong. Not only has business done consistently better under Labour Governments, but this Conservative Government have managed to achieve a greater fall in production, a greater deficiency in demand, a greater decline in manufacturing and a deeper depression than in any other advanced industrial country. So if business men were rational capitalists instead of being masochists—but of course one never knows with these public school men—they would not pay the Conservative Government to make that pain more severe.
That leaves only one further argument—the desire for honours. That is a perfectly honest and honourable desire, but it should never be advanced in any way by company donations. Yet the trends make it look as though that may be the case. Only a small number of peerages and knighthoods go to people described as directors of public companies. Indeed, only 41 such honours have been given in the eight honours lists. Nevertheless, 28 of those 41 went to companies that had given a total of £2·7 million to the Tory party.
Indeed, all eight peerages to directors and chairmen of companies went to men who shared certain characteristics. They are all dominant influences on their companies and are thus in a strong position to influence the decision to give to the Conservative party. Secondly, their companies all gave substantially in the period from 1979 to 1982 inclusive. All but one gave substantially in the year that their chairmen or chief executives were elevated to the peerage. The one exception is Lord Matthews, whose company, Trafalgar House, gave £40,000 to the Conservative party the year before he was elevated and £40,000 the year after he was elevated — a total of £120,000 from 1979 to 1982. All the others gave both in that period and in the year of their creation. Thus, Sir William Cayzer's company, British and Commonwealth Shipping, gave £95,000 in the year that he became a baron, and £218,000 over the period 1979 to 1982. Sir Robert McAlpine's company, Newarthill, gave £33,000 in the year that he was made a baron, and £129,000 over the period 1979 to 1982. So it goes on, to the extent that those eight companies contributed 10 per cent. of the traced


Tory income from companies. What is happening is totally contrary to the spirit and intention of the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925, and merits a full independent inquiry.
Indeed, the correlation is particularly striking when it is realised that 18 companies have given £90,000 or more to Tory funds in the past four years. Fourteen of them have had one of their directors honoured by the Tory Government. The companies that have dominated Tory fund-raising have been honoured at twice the rate of companies that have dominated the economy.
When it comes to honours, a concern about integrity should dictate that those whose companies make donations should have to innovate more, work harder and export more before they obtain an honour, just to discount the imputation that the honour was conferred because of their donations. Yet the reverse is happening. The trends show that those company directors who obtain honours have to work harder, innovate more and export far more if their company does not donate to the Conservative party than those whose companies do.
This is not a party political matter, and nor would I want it to degenerate into a comparison between Tory motes and Labour beams. The problem concerns the integrity of our honours system and merits an inquiry. My Bill would bring the whole matter of contributions into the open and place it on a democratic and accountable basis. The information from the registrar of companies will be made available under the Bill to the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee which, while it has power to object to certain individuals as unsuitable, and while it appears that it gets some indication of political contributions — and one would like to know what indication it gets—does not have the whole picture and cannot discern the type of pattern to which the evidence that I have unveiled today points. Somebody should be able to do so. That failure devalues our honours system.
For that reason, and to ensure justice between the competing interests in society, I ask the House to support my Bill. Money, I suppose, is bound to talk. We in this House have a duty to stop it swearing.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: The House will be grateful to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) for the time and trouble that he has saved us by trailing in the columns of The Times, with the assistance of Mr. Peter Hennessy, what he proposed to say. Therefore, we know what the hon. Gentleman is on about, and the pretence that this is not a party political measure is a thin one.
Simply on a point of fact about the hon. Gentleman's remarks on the Companies Acts, he should have taken the time and trouble to find out that under section 19 of the Companies Act 1967 political donations have to be stated in the annual report and accounts of the company. If the hon. Gentleman is right in what he said about the holdings of pension funds, I think that he is stretching the credulity of his hon. Friends too far if he says that a pension fund which holds 30 per cent. of the shareholding in any given company is forced to make a political contribution. If it wants to put down a motion at the annual general meeting, it can, and it will.
The truth of the matter is that this is a party political attack. When the hon. Gentleman talks about the independent Labour research department, we can see just

how party political it is. That is not exactly an impartial or unbiased body. We hear from The Times that it is funded by 50 national trade unions. We know from our knowledge of Labour history that it has spent many years on the Labour party's proscribed list, when the Labour party cared about those things; and we understand that in 1974 the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock), the Leader of the Opposition, was elected a member of its editorial board. I understand that in 1977 the right hon. Gentleman became a member of its executive council—the only Member of Parliament to be so honoured. I believe that Mr. Douglas Eden, in an article in the Wall Street Journal in September this year, pointed out that, at the time that the right hon. Gentleman was elevated in that way, eight out of 15 of his colleagues on the executive council and 11 out of 19 of his colleagues on the editorial board were known for their Communist affiliations.
Against that background, I suggest that the conclusions of any such independent body are no more credible than its credentials. I do not intend to waste time on the conclusions in its report except to say that it is preposterous to suggest that a great company such as GEC would be prepared to pay £50,000 to Conservative party funds to buy a life peerage for its chairman and a knighthood for one of its executives. That is so preposterous a charge that it is not worth dwelling on any of the others.
What is the real burden of the hon. Gentleman's argument? He talked about integrity. What he is saying is that the integrity of the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee is open to attack, and he is attacking it. That is the gravamen of his charge. The history of the committee will be known to the House. The House will remember how, in the 1920s, it was set up to prevent any repetition of the scandalous sale of honours by Mr. Lloyd George and the Liberal party. Hon. Members on the Liberal Benches will remember that, as we do. The House will also recall from its own more recent memory how the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee came to public attention more recently as a result of what The Times of yesterday described as
Lord Wilson of Rievaule's notorious resignation list of 1976.
—known more commonly arid widely as the "Lavender notepaper mob."
We all know what concern that caused to the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan), Lord Wilson's successor as Prime Minister. We know that he was thinking about doing something, in the right hon. Gentleman's typical way, but, before he got round to acting, the 1979 general election took place and it was left to my right hon. Friend the present Prime Minister to act. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby, who wishes to introduce this silly little measure, has failed in his researches even to look at the statement that my right hon. Friend made in the House on 26 November 1979 from which I quote. There are two statements in it which need to be quoted to put this question of integrity into perspective. My right hon. Friend said:
All recommendations for honours for political and public services will be examined by the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee before they are submitted to the Queen for her approval.
I should also like to announce one other change in the role of the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee. I have asked the committee to examine any names that I add to the recommendations at CBE level and above which are submitted to me through the official honours machinery in respect of


services in all fields other than that of political services. The committee has readily agreed to do so. This further extension of the committee's function will, I believe, help to maintain the integrity of the honours system." — [Official Report, 26 November 1979; Vol. 974, c. 880.]
There is no reason for any hon. Member to suppose that those directions have been relaxed, and all the signs are that they have, if anything, been made more stringent.
What we have before us today is a shabby and scurrilous attack on the integrity of the members of the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee. Lord Shackleton, a distinguished Labour peer, is Chairman of the committee, Lord Franks, a distinguished Liberal peer, is one of its members, and Lord Can, a distinguished Conservative peer, is the third of its members. Their integrity is being attacked today and, in view of what we know about the Leader of the Opposition's connection with the Labour research department, I am a little surprised that we have not had him brandishing from the Dispatch Box a photograph of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister shaking hands with all three noble Lords. This is a sordid little proposal, and it should be voted down without further ado.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Only two speeches are allowed on a ten-minute Bill.

Mr. Atkinson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before you put the Question, may I ask you to consider allowing this debate to be adjourned? It may shock the House to know that, during the period of office of the last Labour Government, an oil company offered a substantial donation to the Labour party when the allocation of oil rights in the North sea was about to be made. That donation was refused by the Labour party, mainly because of the sensitivity of the position, the donation being given to the Minister at the time. The Labour party then took a decision never to accept donations from limited companies or any other form of grouping that could be considered to be an influence concerning the favour of either the allocation of oil rights in the North sea or the allocation of titles or favours of that type.
Under the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) asked both me personally and other leading members of the Labour party who had access to Labour party funds at the time carefully to scrutinise the matter to ensure that not one person who appeared on his list or on any other recent list had made a donation of any type to the Labour party; and the fact that no one had done so was verified——

Mr. Speaker: Order. This sounds like a continuation of the debate rather than a point of order. Will the hon. Gentleman come to his point of order?

Mr. Atkinson: Under the 1925 Act, the charges made by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), which I believe to be true, could, if proved, mean imprisonment for the Prime Minister.
Because of the seriousness of the situation, I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to allow the debate to stand adjourned until further information is made available.

Mr. Speaker: If I sense the mood of the House aright, it is that the House wishes to come to a decision on this matter.

Hon. Members: "No."

Mr. David Winnick: Bring her to the Bar.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) is given leave to bring in his Bill, all such matters can be gone into.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 172, Noes 271.

Division No. 87]
[3.50 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Ewing, Harry


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Fatchett, Derek


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)


Barnett, Guy
Fisher, Mark


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Flannery, Martin


Beith, A. J.
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Foster, Derek


Bidwell, Sydney
Freud, Clement


Blair, Anthony
Garrett, W. E.


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Godman, Dr Norman


Boyes, Roland
Gould, Bryan


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hardy, Peter


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Haynes, Frank


Bruce, Malcolm
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Caborn, Richard
Heffer, Eric S.


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Home Robertson, John


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Canavan, Dennis
Howells, Geraint


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Hoyle, Douglas


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cartwright, John
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Clarke, Thomas
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Clay, Robert
John, Brynmor


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Cohen, Harry
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Coleman, Donald
Kennedy, Charles


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Conlan, Bernard
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Kirkwood, Archibald


Corbett, Robin
Lambie, David


Corbyn, Jeremy
Lamond, James


Cowans, Harry
Leadbitter, Ted


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Leighton, Ronald


Craigen, J. M.
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Crowther, Stan
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Cunningham, Dr John
McCartney, Hugh


Dalyell, Tam
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
McGuire, Michael


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
McWilliam, John


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Madden, Max


Deakins, Eric
Marek, Dr John


Dewar, Donald
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Dixon, Donald
Martin, Michael


Dobson, Frank
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Dormand, Jack
Maxton, John


Douglas, Dick
Maynard, Miss Joan


Dubs, Alfred
Meacher, Michael


Duffy, A. E. P.
Meadowcroft, Michael


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Michie, William


Eastham, Ken
Mikardo, Ian


Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n SE)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Ellis, Raymond
Miller, DrM. S. (E Kilbride)


Evans, Ioan (Cynon Valley)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)






Nellist, David
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Skinner, Dennis


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Park, George
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Patchett, Terry
Soley, Clive


Pendry, Tom
Spearing, Nigel


Penhaligon, David
Steel, Rt Hon David


Pike, Peter
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Stott, Roger


Prescott, John
Straw, Jack


Radice, Giles
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Randall, Stuart
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Redmond, M.
Torney, Tom


Richardson, Ms Jo
Wainwright, R.


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Wallace, James


Robertson, George
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Wareing, Robert


Rogers, Allan
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Rooker, J. W.
Wilson, Gordon


Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)
Winnick, David


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Woodall, Alec


Rowlands, Ted



Sheerman, Barry
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Mr. Allan McKay and Mr. George Foulkes.


Shore, Rt Hon Peter





NOES


Adley, Robert
Cope, John


Alexander, Richard
Cormack, Patrick


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Corrie, John


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Couchman, James


Ancram, Michael
Crouch, David


Aspinwall, Jack
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Dicks, T.


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Baker, Kenneth (Mole Valley)
Dover, Denshore


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Baldry, Anthony
Dunn, Robert


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Durant, Tony


Batiste, Spencer
Dykes, Hugh


Bendall, Vivian
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)
Eggar, Tim


Benyon, William
Emery, Sir Peter


Berry, Sir Anthony
Eyre, Reginald


Best, Keith
Fallon, Michael


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Farr, John


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Body, Richard
Fletcher, Alexander


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fookes, Miss Janet


Bottomley, Peter
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Fox, Marcus


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Franks, Cecil


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Freeman, Roger


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Gale, Roger


Bright, Graham
Galley, Roy


Brooke, Hon Peter
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bruinvels, Peter
Goodlad, Alastair


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Gow, Ian


Buck, Sir Antony
Gower, Sir Raymond


Budgen, Nick
Greenway, Harry


Bulmer, Esmond
Gregory, Conal


Burt, Alistair
Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)


Butterfill, John
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Grist, Ian


Carttiss, Michael
Ground, Patrick


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Grylls, Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Gummer, John Selwyn


Chope, Christopher
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hanley, Jeremy


Clarke Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hannam, John


Cockeram, Eric
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Colvin, Michael
Harvey, Robert


Conway, Derek
Haselhurst, Alan


Coombs, Simon
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)





Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)
Neubert, Michael


Hawksley, Warren
Newton, Tony


Hayes, J.
Nicholls, Patrick


Hayhoe, Barney
Norris, Steven


Hayward, Robert
Onslow, Cranley


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Oppenheim, Philip


Heddle, John
Osborn, Sir John


Hickmet, Richard
Ottaway, Richard


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Page, John (Harrow W)


Hill, James
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Hirst, Michael
Parris, Matthew


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Patten, John (Oxford)


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Pawsey, James


Holt, Richard
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hooson, Tom
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Howard, Michael
Pollock, Alexander


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Powley, John


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Price, Sir David


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Hunter, Andrew
Raffan, Keith


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Jessel, Toby
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Key, Robert
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Roe, Mrs Marion


King, Rt Hon Tom
Rost, Peter


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Rowe, Andrew


Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Knowles, Michael
Ryder, Richard


Lang, Ian
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Latham, Michael
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Lawler, Geoffrey
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lawrence, Ivan
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Silvester, Fred


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Sims, Roger


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Skeet, T. H. H.


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lightbown, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lilley, Peter
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Speller, Tony


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Spence, John


Lord, Michael
Spencer, D.


Lyell, Nicholas
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


McCrindle, Robert
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Squire, Robin


Macfarlane, Neil
Stanley, John


MacGregor, John
Stern, Michael


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Macmillan, Rt Hon M.
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


McQuarrie, Albert
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Major, John
Stokes, John


Malins, Humfrey
Stradling Thomas, J.


Malone, Gerald
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Maples, John
Temple-Morris, Peter


Marland, Paul
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Marlow, Antony
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Mather, Carol
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Maude, Francis
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Thornton, Malcolm


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Thurnham, Peter


Mellor, David
Tracey, Richard


Merchant, Piers
Twinn, Dr Ian


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Waddington, David


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Moate, Roger
Walden, George


Monro, Sir Hector
Wall, Sir Patrick


Montgomery, Fergus
Waller, Gary


Moore, John
Walters, Dennis


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Ward, John


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Moynihan, Hon C.
Warren, Kenneth


Mudd, David
Watson, John


Needham, Richard
Wells, John (Maidstone)






Whitfield, John
Younger, Rt Hon George


Whitney, Raymond



Wilkinson, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Winterton, Nicholas
Mr. Robert Atkins and Mr. Christopher Murphy.


Wood, Timothy



Yeo, Tim

Question accordingly negatived.

Education (Grants and Awards) Bill

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 1

LIMITATION ON USE OF GRANTS

'No money provided under this Act shall be used in any school where admission is based on a selective examination or set of tests of ability.'.—[Mr. Radice.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Giles Radice: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take new clause 2—Funding for education support grants:
`Expenditure previously incurred under sections 17 and 18 of the Education Act 1980 shall be used by the Secretary of State for the provision of education support grants.'.

Mr. Radice: First, I should like to make it plain that we shall support new clause 2, tabled by the Liberal-SDP alliance.
As is well known, the Labour Party strongly opposed the setting up of the assisted places scheme because we believed that it would cream off able children from the state system of education and also because it was a form of subsidy to an already privileged private system. We favour a much more radical policy towards the fee-paying schools, but in the meantime they should at least stand on their own feet without all the subsidies and reliefs that they now receive from the state. The purpose of the new clause is to ensure that education support grants are not used to finance educational experiments in grammar schools, or experiments in setting up new grammar schools.
The selective grammar school is an almost extinct species. In 1965 there were well over 1,000 grammar schools; in January 1983 there were only 175. The decisive move away from selective education took place long before the advent of the present Government. Significantly enough, it also took place before the Education Act 1976 made it compulsory to move away from selection. By 1976, over 70 per cent. of secondary school pupils in the maintained sector were in comprehensive schools. I am sure that the former Labour Secretary of State for Education, the right hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice), could confirm that figure.
The movement against selection and towards comprehensive schools came from below, and the local education authorities, including many Conservative authorities, were the crucial agents in the change. They were responding to pressure from parents. The old selective system, under which the vast majority of children failed the 11-plus and went on to secondary modern schools, was deeply unpopular—and with good reason. It was unjust, inefficient, wasteful and divisive.
The system was unjust because, as many studies showed at the time, the 11-plus was as much a measurement of social class as of intelligence. It was inefficient and wasteful because, as was admitted even by its advocates, there was a margin of error with the 11-plus of at least 10 per cent., which meant that the life chances of many children were drastically reduced.

Mr. Terry Dicks: The hon. Gentleman knows all about it, does he?

Mr. Radice: Yes, I know about it.

Mr. Dicks: The hon. Gentleman was not an 11-plus failure, was he?

Mr. Radice: I was not, but my own child, who would have failed the 11-plus, got the best 0-level results of all my children. I know what would have happened if there had been an 11-plus system at the time.
The system also wasted human potential. That was recorded by three committees set up by Conservative Governments — the Crowther, Newsom and Robbins committees. Before they advocate bringing back grammar schools, Conservative Members should remember that. Even for the brightest pupils the grammar school curriculum was often extremely narrow, and the needs of the so-called third streams were largely ignored. Despite many efforts, and with some brilliant exceptions, the secondary moderns failed to provide the average child with an adequate education.

Mr. Harry Greenway: That is not true.

Mr. Radice: I wish that the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) would produce some evidence.
The system was also divisive. The continued existence of a powerful and privileged private system of education is more divisive still, but to allocate the majority of children at an early age to different types of school by methods which were a measure as much of social class as of anything else was not the best way to promote social harmony or a cohesive community. Furthermore, we should not forget the personal disappointments and heartaches caused by such early selection.
Fortunately, nearly 90 per cent. of our children in the state system attend comprehensive schools, while less than 4 per cent. attend grammar schools. It is in the light of those figures that we should consider the recent campaign — in which the Secretary of State for Education and Science played a distinguished part—for the return of the grammar schools. It is interesting, incidentally, that there has been no campaign for the reintroduction of the secondary modern schools. We should see that campaign for what it really is—a last-ditch defence of an almost extinct species. Those who wish to reintroduce grammar schools, or are tempted under the Bill to use the education support grants to help in their reintroduction, should note that recent attempts, for example, by the Solihull authority, to bring back grammar schools met with fierce opposition from Conservative parents. They should note also that a move to reintroduce grammar schools in Richmond was nipped in the bud by a spontaneous revolt by parents.
We have heard a great deal from Conservative Members—there has even been an early-day motion on it — about a recent Gallup poll. I noted that hon. Gentlemen happened to see that the majority of people in this country seem to believe that grammar and secondary modern schools together provided a better education than comprehensives. We should note that it was not a separate poll on grammar and secondary modern schools.
The point that Conservative Members do not mention, which arises from the poll, is that, when asked which type of school they would now prefer, 54 per cent. said that they wished the number of comprehensive schools to be maintained or increased. If we judge by the test of examination results—that conventional test about which we are always hearing from the Conservative Benches

we find that for the majority of our schoolchildren there is no doubt that comprehensive education has been a success. I shall give the figures.
Over the last decade, when the number of 16-year-olds increased by one fifth, the number achieving five O-level passes has increased by 50 per cent., and the number achieving between one and four O-level passes has risen by 80 per cent. Those who were frightened by the comprehensive schools and supported grammar schools said that the brightest children would suffer. If we study the figures, we see that the percentage of the age group passing A-levels has increased over the decade.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Sir Keith Joseph): I have been restraining myself from expressing the disagreement that I feel with practically everything that the hon. Gentleman has said. He had the honesty to describe the rise in the number of children taking O-levels. He has not had the honesty to declare the rise in the number of those taking A-levels. If one compares the A-level results with the population growth, there has scarcely been an increase. I do not believe for one moment that examination results are the only way to measure school effectiveness, but the hon. Gentleman chooses to quote them, and I think that he is misleading the House.

Mr. Radice: The right hon. Gentleman cannot have heard me. I said that the percentage of the age group passing A-levels has increased.

Sir Keith Joseph: Marginally.

Mr. Radice: It is a marginal increase, but it is an increase. I am glad that we can agree. I am quoting the figures contained in the educational statistics for 1983—the 1981–82 figures compared with 1970–71.

Sir Keith Joseph: Marginally.

Mr. Radice: I accept that. If we take the less academically able children, we find that the numbers leaving school without passing any kind of examination have fallen dramatically. I accept that the leaving age has increased and that the CSE has been introduced, but the prophets of doom who said that the most able would suffer as a consequence of comprehensive schools have been proved wrong.
The middle range of ability has benefited greatly, if we judge by the conventional test. It is the test that lion. Gentlemen always use. I am using their test against the system. I accept that there are problems with the education of the less able in our schools, but let us be honest with ourselves. They are much better provided for now than they were under the old selective system.
Recently, the National Council for Educational Standards—so-called—attempted to prove that the few remaining selective grammar and secondary modern schools performed better than comprehensive schools. That finding has been criticised by the statistical department of the Department of Education and Science which concluded that the Cox and Marks study had failed to take adequate account of the social class factor, which partly explains why their conclusions are so much at variance with other studies such as those carried out by the National Children's Bureau and Edinburgh university.
For most pupils, comprehensive schools have meant an end to the nightmare of the 11-plus, improved access to learning opportunities and greater academic achievement. There have also been significant——

Sir Keith Joseph: The hon. Gentleman has at least had the decency to withdraw the claim that he made in The Times on Saturday that the Department of Education and Science statisticians still regarded the conclusion of the National Council for Educational Standards as being severely flawed. That judgment has been withdrawn completely by the Department of Education and Science's statisticians. As for the comment that there could have been more use of regression analysis in the study, the Department's statisticians say that that is a matter of argument between professional statisticians. I shall send the hon. Gentleman a copy.

Mr. Radice: I have it.

Sir Keith Joseph: It is a matter of respectable argument between statisticians. They found the research done by the National Council for Educational Standards to be pioneering and useful, not flawed, and certainly not flawed by the fact that they used more or less regression analysis than some other researchers.

Mr. Radice: The right hon. Gentleman has tried hard to misquote me, and to defend his remarks about the National Council for Educational Standards. I never said that its work was seriously flawed. I shall quote my letter. It is always useful when the right hon. Gentleman is about to have the documents; he can then perhaps learn wisdom. I said:
You find space to quote Sir Keith's welcome for their 'pioneering work' but fail to mention the substantial criticisms of the NCES's methodology contained in three of the statement's five paragraphs.
The right hon. Gentleman can have that.

Sir Keith Joseph: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. By the time that he wrote that letter which appeared in The Timeson Saturday, the Department's statisticians' withdrawal of the allegations had been published. The hon. Gentleman's use of a quotation from an outdated letter was not proper argument.

Mr. Radice: I am quoting from the statement that the Minister made to the House. Three of the five paragraphs make substantial criticisms of the methodology used by the NCES. It is disgraceful that a fellow of All Souls should back this piece of research when his own Department has raised serious questions about its methodology. It is not up to the standard that the House expects from a Secretary of State.

Sir Keith Joseph: I apologise to the House Mr. Speaker; I have to leave in a few minutes to meet an obligation. I hope that the House will not think me rude if I withdraw after this little disputation.
The hon. Gentleman is, I believe, misleading himself. He is trying to tarnish this research with a taint that has been entirely withdrawn by the professionals in the Department of which I am at present the head.

Mr. Radice: The Secretary of State is misleading the House in what he says. Three paragraphs of the Secretary

of State's statement concern the methodology that the report used. The point I make is that the question of social class was not properly accounted for.
I accept that the report says:
while acknowledging the difficulties of applying regression analysis.
There is an argument that can be used, but most of the experts, including the Department's own experts, do not believe that Cox and Marks have taken sufficient account of social class when looking at the results. If the Secretary of State does not understand that, he is not living up to this reputation as a senior researcher.
For most pupils comprehensive schools have meant an end to the nightmare of 11-plus, they have improved access to learning opportunities and they have meant greater academic achievement. There have been other significant advantages. Comprehensive schools have meant an enriched curriculum for many children, not just the narrow academic curriculum that was characteristic of grammar schools.
The major advantage of genuinely comprehensive schools is that pupils of varying skills and abilities and from different social backgrounds meet.

Mr. Dicks: That is a mistake.

Mr. Radice: The fact that the hon. Member says that it is a mistake may explain why this country suffers from such deep social and class division. I should have thought it can be only for the good of society that people from different social backgrounds and different abilities meet at school every day.

Mr. Dicks: The point I tried to make was that grammar schools allowed for a social mix. There are former Opposition Members of Parliament who rose from nothing to be Ministers of State, having been to primary schools, irrespective of social background. To mix ability in comprehensive schools holds back the ability of bright pupils to get on and of slow ones to learn. If the hon. Gentleman believes in special schools for mentally retarded people, why does he not believe in special schools for particularly bright people?

Mr. Radice: If the hon. Member had been listening, he would have heard my quotation from the statistics about examination results. I agree with the Secretary of State that they are not the most important point. It is a fact that the brightest children have not suffered as a result of the comprehensive school system.
As to grammar schools, only a minority of the children attending them, despite the fact they were in the state system, usually measuring about one third, came from a working class background. It depended upon the area of the school, but that was the normal figure throughout the country.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument, with great interest. He spoke of the narrow curriculum of the grammar schools compared with the enriched curriculum of comprehensive schools. Would the hon. Gentleman define his terms? Secondly, how does he account for the fact that fewer children than ever before from working class backgrounds go to university?

Mr. Radice: In reply to the second point, there is an argument as to the reasons. This is a matter which the Secretary of State should be examining. First, there is the cutback in university provision of which I am sure the hon.


Member is well aware. The statistics are partly in doubt, but I think that is probably true. Secondly, because the statistics are not available we do not know whether working class children are attending the polytechnics to a much greater extent. That argument has been advanced. Given that the possession of a university degree did not lead necessarily to a job, it might be that many children were deterred from going on to university or to further education. The position must be looked at as a whole. I do not accept the basis of the hon. Gentleman's argument.
The hon. Gentleman will know that in the best comprehensives there is access to good music, good drama classes and good craft classes in a way that was not possible in the old grammar schools. This is an argument for the comprehensive system. Indeed, the point was borne out by the Select Committee of which the hon. Gentleman is a member.
It is wrong for the Government to encourage local authorities to reintroduce selection. There is nothing modern or sophisticated—and here I use the words of the Secretary for State—about selection. Selection is as old as the hills. It failed to solve yesterday's problems and is more than ever irrelevant to today's education issues. The Secretary of State and his Ministers should be encouraging the few remaining authorities that have not yet done so to go comprehensive.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Robert Dunn): Does the hon. Member say that no selection for streaming or banding takes place in comprehensive schools?

Mr. Radice: There is no selection to get into comprehensive schools. In some cases there is streaming and there is, indeed, some kind of banding. There is an argument about whether that is a good thing, but at least everybody is in the same school and pupils are not separated into two different types of establishment.
If the Minister does not understand that, he does not understand the protest, or what the parents of Solihull and the parents of Richmond are saying. He ought to understand because those parents used to vote for the Tory party.

Mr. Clement Freud: Would the hon. Member ask the Secretary of State why he intends to leave the House when it was clear that the Bill that was his brainchild was coming up on Report today?

Mr. Radice: I am sure that the Secretary of State can answer that question himself. If he is prepared to leave the House when it is considering his only Bill this Session, he must have good reason.

Mr. Freud: He has lost faith in the Bill.

Mr. Radice: That may well be the reason.
The Government should drop the idea of reintroducing a selective system and grammar schools and should face up to the real issues. We could do that much better without the red herring of selection. The purpose of the new clause is to assist that process, and in that spirit I commend it to the House.

Mr. Freud: I strongly support new clause 1, although my remarks are mainly in support of new clause 2. First,

I should be grateful if the Secretary of State would say why he will not be in his place while his shoddy little Bill is being discussed.

Sir Keith Joseph: If I am involved in this or any amendment I shall of course remain in the Chamber. I have complete confidence in my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. Some of the amendments I intend to leave to him, unless I am particularly involved in the debate on those amendments.

Mr. Freud: I am grateful for that explanation, although had the right hon. Gentleman been rather more diligent he would have noticed that there are no amendments, only new clauses. However, it is good to know that he will be around.
The Bill is based on two premises. The first is that educational initiatives need central encouragement and that that calls for a certain amount of central money. f am not sure that I would disagree with that part of the Secretary of State's argument. But I disagree with him in that the Government are pilfering local authorities' money to pay for the scheme. It would be better if the Government were to switch money from one central fund, the assisted places scheme, to another, the educational support grants, without paring LEA budgets even more.
Local education authorities are already suffering severe financial privations thanks to this Government, and I bring to the attention of the Secretary of State—if one can bring anything to the right hon. Gentleman's attention—some of the privations that pertain in Britain. The Government inspectorate found four local education authorities in 1980 in breach of their minimum statutory duties as set out in the Education Act 1944. Despite that, we have a Bill by which LEAs are deprived of £46 million of their funds.
Government cuts force almost one third of LEAs to increase the number of mixed-age classes in primary schools. Rather than make that situation better, the Secretary of State is depriving education authorities of money. One in six primary schools now officially have unsatisfactory teaching provision. Rather than do something about that —LEAs know what to do about that could they afford to do it—we have this measure that will deprive LEAs of money.
One quarter of primary schools and one third of secondary schools officially have unsatisfactory book provision; one fifth of secondary schools lack appropriately qualified staff; one in five maths teachers in secondary schools is not qualified; and the HMIs report a reduction in the range of courses, courses that are desperately needed by those who go to school so as to find employment afterwards.
In the face of that, it cannot be equitable to take money from the state sector while propping up the private sector to the tune of £17 million, which is what the assisted places scheme costs. My argument is simple. It is that before we start supporting those who have, let us look to those who need, and the assisted places scheme—£17 million may be only a small amount—saps the morale of the state sector.
It amounts to a vote of no confidence in the state sector by the Government, to whom that sector should be entitled to look for support. They are the very people who are supposed to nurture and improve the state sector. What better boost could the state sector be given as it provides


for the education of the overwhelming majority of children than for the Secretary of State to have switched money from the needless assisted places scheme to education support grants to improve the state sector?

Mr. Dunn: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Liberal party, like the Labour party, would, if in office, abolish the private sector?

Mr. Freud: The Liberal party would not abolish the private sector, and we have made that clear. We would make the private sector more private. We should certainly take from it such concessions, such as charitable status, as it currently has. However, I wish to make it clear that we on these Benches, as opposed to the Labour party—which says that when it takes power assisted places will be cut at a stroke — would not wish to interfere or impose political philosophy to the detriment of children's education. We would phase it out. It would be right to stop making additional awards and to use the money thereby saved to make grants to improve and innovate the state sector.

Mr. Greenway: This important debate has in some ways lost its way in educational terms. I remind the hon. Members for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) and Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) that we must argue these matters in educational terms. The hon. Member for Durham, North dwelt at some length on ways of evaluating a school's success or otherwise and said that it was normal for Conservatives to evaluate schools on the basis of examination results. That was a false argument for him to adduce, although I am grateful that he exempted me from that assertion. I urge him to exempt most members of my party from it, too.

Mr. Radice: What about Cox and Marks? They are members of the hon. Gentleman's party and they have built a great study on examination results, which is why I felt that I should quote them in that context. Indeed, I recall educational spokesmen for the Conservative party when in opposition spending all their time talking about examination results.

Mr. Greenway: It is perfectly respectable to say that some schools perform better than others in examinations, and that is what the hon. Gentleman was saying. The National Council for Educational Standards has been saying that, and so has the National Children's Bureau, at great public expense, for many years, often in a Left-wing way. In my experience, the O-level is a test of memory rather than intelligence, which is why pupils often perform differently at A-level in terms of achievement than at O-level, and that point should also be made in relation to the proposed new clause.
It was dreadful to hear the hon. Member for Durham, North say—though I am grateful for the good support that he has been giving me—that there was a vast waste of human potential under the old selective system. I do not think that he could substantiate that. He added that the powerful private sector also detracted from the state sector. I was waiting to hear him talk of the tripartite system— at which he was effectively looking and in which I worked for a number of years—and compare pupil mobility in that system with some comprehensive schools today.
Had he done that, he would have discovered—I can assure him of this from my experience—that there was a great deal of movement of pupils between secondary grammar schools and secondary modem schools and in the reverse direction, and that there was movement of pupils among secondary grammar schools, secondary technical schools and secondary modem schools. I wish that he would stop knocking the secondary moderns so hard. There is devoted teaching and excellent learning in them. In many cases they have been successful institutions and as good as a great many so-called comprehensives today. He will know that I say that as one who has devoted more than 20 years of his life to comprehensives with a deep and honest commitment.
The House should compare the movement of pupils between the three kinds of schools within the old tripartite system for ability or other valid educational reasons with the movement today within comprehensive schools. If there is mixed ability teaching exclusively in a comprehensive school, as there is in many of them, there is no movement for children because of achievement, ability or any other reason. That is where they often go wrong. That is what draws public opprobrium to an area in which so many of us have worked devotedly and successfully for so long.

Mr. Radice: I have listened with great interest and respect to the hon. Member because he knows a great deal about these matters. I do not want to knock him. The waste of human potential was not my point but was referred to in famous state reports, commissioned incidentally by the Conservative party when at one point at any rate the Secretary of State was a member of the Government; I am thinking of Crowther, Newsom and Robbins. All three drew attention to the waste of potential under the old system.
As to the movement between the different elements of the tripartite system, if the hon. Member is being fair with the House he should accept that there was some movement, although it was marginal and less than the 10 per cent. margin of error which even the advocates of the 11-plus admitted there was as a result of that examination.

Mr. Greenway: In the tripartite system in which I was operating we accepted 90 pupils per year, and an extra 20 pupils from outside in the third year, which is substantially more than 20 per cent. movement. There is no movement like that within many comprehensives today.
Of course the reports which the hon. Member for Durham, North mentioned are important and put down markers. However, he should make fair comparisons between comprehensives now and what was outlined in those reports. The hon. Gentleman does the comprehensive system no favour by saying constantly that everything before it was wrong and that everything within it is right and should be accepted, because parents know that they must be made a great deal better in many cases. That is not to say that there is not much devoted, honest and sound work going into many of them, but in others there is a long way to go and we must not go down a road which seeks complete acceptance of what is fundamentally a dogma. Let us keep working at it to get it right.
When the hon. Gentleman said that there was no selection into comprehensives, did he forget the ILEA scheme of selecting children into comprehensive schools on three broad bands of ability, according to mathematical


attainment, verbal reasoning and reading ability? Does he not know that schools are allowed to accept only 25 per cent. into band one, 50 per cent. into band two, and 25 per cent. into band three? If a pupil is one over the 25 per cent. applying for a school which already has 25 per cent., then he does not get into that school but has to go down the road. That is selection by ability and no less.

Mr. Dunn: Will my hon. Friend consider which is worse—selection at the age of 11 and entry to a school on the basis of tests and course work throughout the year, or entry to a school on the basis that parents can afford to pay £5,000 more for a house in the catchment area serving that school?

Mr. Greenway: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. It was the other point which Opposition spokesmen omitted to make—that we have selection by area and by ability to pay to live in certain areas. If a family lives in a good area the children can get into a good school. If it is a rundown area the children may get into a good school because some schools in rundown areas are extremely good and well run, but not all of them are.
In regard to the attack upon the assisted places scheme by the Liberal spokesman, the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud), I say to him and to anyone else who is tempted down that road that they should not knock the scheme because if they do so they are knocking the chances of children who would otherwise perhaps have no opportunity of good education. They might be poverty-stricken or children whose families have broken up and who have no social opportunity to give them any sort of chance. Every time the scheme is knocked, those are the children who will suffer. If that is the way the Liberal party wants to go, let it join the Labour party, but it will be to its eternal shame.

Mr. Martin Flannery: I have listened with interest to the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway). We have done Committee work together for a long time. A different ethos from mine pervades his approach to education. A different ethos to education from that on the Labour Benches prevails on the Government Benches. The gap will not be bridged easily. It will take a long time.

Mr. Greenway: The hon. Gentleman and I agree on a great deal and we know that. I am sure he is not going back on that; I never would.

Mr. Flannery: No. That is true.
Before I address myself precisely to the new clause we must consider to some extent what was called a shoddy little Bill. It is a nasty little Bill, as I said when we discussed it some time ago. We cannot discuss the new clause in a vacuum. It must be related to its background and to what is happening. There is an all-out attack on comprehensive education. Comprehensive education is not a static concept. It flowed from all the weaknesses of the previous system and its development is far from finished. We shall learn a great deal more as we go on. We shall continue to discuss whether the neighbourhood school is the answer. We are not sure. We would like Conservative Members to help us rather than argue against it constantly and underestimate its achievements.

Mr. Dunn: Does the hon. Member realise that by his early remarks about this being a nasty little Bill he is to

some extent distancing himself from the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) who said on Second Reading:
We shall vote against the Bill. That is not because we. object to specific grants in principle." — [Official Report, 14 November 1983; Vol. 48, c. 638.]

Mr. Flannery: I do not think that what the hon. Gentleman has said is in the faintest way related to what my hon. Friend said. Of course we are not against specific grants. How could we be? Most people do not understand what is happening. Certainly the public, who will read about the debate in the press, if it gets good coverage, do not understand. They do not understand that we are arguing about a mere 0·5 per cent. That amounts to about £40 million to £46 million. In the normal sequence of events that money would have automatically been given to local education authorities. However, it is now being taken away from them. They are to be made to compete for it.
The Opposition are fighting so hard about this matter because the cuts in education are horrific. To provide an adequate service for our children, we are reduced to debating a tiny sum of money that the Conservative party is taking away. Even though there will be an element of competition to obtain funds, the Conservatives are also taking away £70 million of public money to give to private education, which is already wealthy and powerful. They know what they are doing. They are taking away urgently needed money. They are giving it to a part of education that is already overflowing with money.
As to the tears of the hon. Member for Ealing, North, he knows full well what his party is doing. He is an intelligent man. He takes refuge in saying such things as, "Of course there were good secondary modern schools and of course there was movement in the tripartite system." The implication in his argument is that we have said that teachers and children in those schools were not working admirably. However, they were working under frightful conditions. The movement from secondary modern to grammar school was almost nil and the hon. Member for Ealing, North knows it.

Mr. Greenway: rose——

Mr. Flannery: I might give way a couple of times later but to be interrupted constantly will stop the flow of the debate. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for not giving way.
The Bill will organise a competition — a sort of 11-plus — for local authorities to prove that they need money which hitherto they have had access to without such competition. Such competition is being heaped on top of cuts in rate support grant. The local authorities are already miserably hard put to provide a proper education for children in their areas.
It must be obvious that local education authorities must now work out their priorities with insufficient money for their education provision. They will have to reduce the number of priorities in the belief that they will be better able to compete by showing the difficulties that they face getting something from the pitiful amount of money that they are to be given. They are being told that needy children will be helped by the assisted places scheme. That is utter nonsence. The money is being taken away so that it can be given to those who already have enough. The Conservatives know that.
We should not concede one iota because this wicked Bill is filching money from needy children while the Government pretend that they are helping them. We shall fight tooth and nail the Government taking money away from our children and giving it to those who are already well provided for.

Mr. Greenway: rose——

Mr. Flannery: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not giving way but I want to move on.
The Secretary of State has often said that he wants to influence education spending at the margins. That is one of those wonderful expressions, which really mean that he intends to cut education to the bone. Subjects such as music, more literature and things that we fought for, such as the provision of free swimming, are to be hived off, while money is to be spent on the private scheme. I am glad that the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) mentioned that. Spending cuts have already eliminated the frills. Our children are now being deprived of such things as free swimming to which even children in the 1920s had access.
Local authorities have some discretion but their scope has been steadily eroded. That process is being increased by reductions in rate support grant and the reductions that we are discussing. The 0·5 per cent. cut is yet another deliberate erosion of the funds that we desperately need to provide a proper service for our children. The Secretary of State has great discretion in regard to educational expenditure. That discretion is filtered through many organisations, such as the Secondary Examinations Council and the School Curriculum Development Committee.
Conservative Members say that we are laying too much store on examinations. We have fought all our lives against the examination mind. It is the employers who have been making it clear that they want a narrow curriculum. They are laying down the law. They are not members of the Labour party. They want a return to the three Rs in primary schools and to reintroduce the 11-plus. The Opposition are fighting such a proposition tooth and nail. We have the support of most Tory parents because they want their children to have comprehensive education. They remember their days of being faced with the 11-plus examination. The hon. Member for Ealing, North and I probably invigilated some of them. I remember visiting schools to see delicate children who I knew would "fail" that examination. No child is a failure. It is anti-educational to blare into a child's ear or a parent's ear that a child has failed an examination. That has nothing in common with the broad concept of education for all of our children.
Most people do not understand that all primary schools in the state system are comprehensive. They take children regardless of qualifications. Some children come from nurseries and others come from playgroups. They are better for that but they all enter a comprehensive system. The 11-plus destroyed that and began to separate the children. It creamed off a maximum of about 20 per cent. of children, who went to a grammar school.
New clause 1 has been tabled because of Conservative Members' beliefs in grammar schools. Grammar schools took away 20 per cent. of the children who would have gone to a comprehensive school and, having creamed them

off, their gifts and talents were denied to the rest of the system. That meant that the highly vocal parents of that 20 per cent. did not come to parent-teacher meetings at the secondary modern schools. The children who attended grammar schools usually came from better homes in which books were available, while they were not available in the homes of the other 80 per cent., and usually the parents of the grammar school children had better jobs. That is a description of the child who usually passed the 11-plus, and who had all the advantages.
5 pm
The absence of those parents who would have attended parent-teacher meetings, who would have spoken and struggled for their children, affected the other children and parents.
The Government wish to revert to an elitist system, which the Opposition and many Conservative Members have struggled to eliminate. The 11-plus examination was an educational abomination, which we fought for many years to abolish. However, the assisted places scheme is an attempt to return to the earlier system by creaming off some children who can get a toe-hold, in advance of a foothold. The next stage is to launch endless black papers and Cox and Marks reports, which are selective and biased in the extreme. The object is to denigrate a dynamically developing system of education which is achieving results that are far better than we ever had.
My hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North said that fewer working-class children go to university. This year the University Grants Committee, which is the pliant tool of the Conservative party, prevented many highly educated working-class children from attending university by increasing the required qualifications. Such action has excluded many pupils who are suitably qualified because they attended comprehensive schools. My hon. Friend said that many of those children have instead attended polytechnics, which are advancing dynamically. They are not as elitist as the universities. The main universities—Oxford and Cambridge — generally take their students from the public schools, which gives them the edge on the rest of us. The official Opposition have differences with Liberal Members—thank God for that. I would hate to have to agree with them on everything. Although the Liberals support comprehensive education, they still have a foot in the private camp. They cannot rid themselves of the foothold and I doubt whether they ever will.
Of course, many hon. Members attended a grammar school. I remember my grammar school —[Interruption.] There were no comprehensives in those days. How could we not go to the grammar school? Fifty per cent. of the children at my grammar school passed the so-called scholarship, but 80 per cent. of the children in the city failed the exam primarily because there were not enough places in the grammar schools. Cities varied as to the number of places available at their grammar schools. If a pupil had an IQ of 100 he got a place at the grammar school in one city but an IQ of 117 was necessary to get into a grammar school in another city. The position was silly in that the cleverer child was unable to gain a place in a grammar school in one city whereas the child who was not so bright gained a place elsewhere. Educationists finally rebelled against that procedure. Fifty per cent. of the boys at my old grammar school received financial


assistance. The ordinary people were unable to pay for their children, so more than 80 per cent. of the children in the city did not receive a grammar school education.
Most of the children who went to grammar schools were the favoured children, from better-off homes in the good districts. To revert to that position would be dreadful. We are arguing about a pitiful amount of money. The reason why there is insufficient money for education is that it has been siphoned off into private education. We are trying to ensure that none of that money assists private education and the selective process. That is a good educational aim. It is our aim, but, to its shame, it is not the aim of the Conservative party.

Mr. J. F. Pawsey: The problem in following the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) is that he scatters so many red herrings about that the difficulty is knowing which ones to pick up. However, I shall take the hon. Gentleman to task on two points.
First, the Bill is not, as the hon. Gentleman said, an all-out attack on comprehensive education. He knows as well as I do that there are many excellent comprehensive schools, and thank God for them. Secondly, many of the comprehensive schools — indeed, the majority — were created under Conservative rather than Labour Administrations. The hon. Member for Hillsborough referred to the assisted places scheme. As he is a fair-minded man, I know that he will not object to my reminding him of the words of my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security, who was then the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, when he introduced the assisted places scheme. He said:
It is to give able children from less well-off families the opportunity of attending good independent schools and to widen the educational opportunities available to children from financially less well-off homes by helping with the cost of tuition fees where parents cannot afford the full or the partial costs." —[Official Report, 9 February 1983; Vol. 36, c. 1093.]
The hon. Member for Hillsborough will be pleased to know that 62 per cent. of the public approve of the assisted places scheme, according to a ORI poll in January. The hon. Gentleman cannot overlook those facts.
I listened with interest to the clear and unambiguous commitment of the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud), who said that the Liberal party, if elected, would abolish the charitable status of public schools. The hon. Gentleman must know that that would sound the death knell of the majority of our public schools. I hope that parents clearly noted that statement given without qualification.
It is worth noting that only six Members of the Opposition are present for the debate, five from the official Opposition, one from the Liberal party and none from the Social Democratic party. That fact may be a sign of the importance that the SDP attaches to education.

Mr. Freud: If the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) wishes to be fair, he should also state how many Conservative hon. Members are present.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Nine and one asleep.

Mr. Pawsey: That is twice as many hon. Members as are here to represent the official Opposition.
The hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) used new clause 1 as an opportunity to launch an attack

on the remaining grammar schools. He said that they are an extinct species. The hon. Gentleman may think that they are dead, but they certainly will not lie down. They are as vigorous now as they ever were. We may even see a generous revival taking place. The hon. Gentleman drew from his family experience when he said that his daughter would probably have failed selection, but went on to get the best O-level results in the family. Many local authorities operate a safety net which means that if someone has not entered a grammar school or a school which operates the system of selective education, and the child then does well at his comprehensive school. he can later move to a grammar school or to a school which has selective education. The chances are that the hon. Gentleman's daughter would have done just as well with the system that I have outlined.
The hon. Member for Durham, North also mentioned what he described as the cohesive community. The comprehensive school is not cohesive. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said in an intervention, people will vote with their feet. If one comprehensive school has a better reputation than another, parents will willingly pay up to £2,000 to £3,000 more for a house in that catchment area to ensure that their children can enjoy the benefit of what they consider to be a better education. Those are the facts, and I suggest that they show a much more unfair selection than the hon. Gentleman said applied to grammar schools.

Mr. Radice: Is the hon. Gentleman advocating that the Conservative party should adopt a different housing policy?

Mr. Pawsey: That remark is unworthy of the hon. Gentleman. We have heard better arguments from him, and we even heard better arguments than that during his opening speech.
The hon. Gentleman also said that the Bill represented a last-ditch defence. It does not, but it may well be an opportunity for second thoughts. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the improvement in O and A-level results, but he did not mention the massive and dramatic increase in the funding of education during the past 20 years. He might wish to consider that the increase in funds made available to education and the improvement in pupil-teacher ratios had some bearing on the improvement in standards. Another reason why A-level results are now so much better is that we take into account the fact that the independent sector scores many A-level successes. The hon. Gentleman cannot say that the comprehensive sector should take all the credit for the additional A-level successes.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman has concluded his argument in favour of grammar schools. What proportion of children does he believe should go to grammar schools and what proportion to secondary modern schools? In the old system there were great variations. If he is asking us to return to the old system, he should tell us whether he believes that the proportion should be 15 per cent., 20 per cent., 25 per cent. or 30 per cent.

Mr. Pawsey: I have not argued so far, although I shall try to get on to it in a moment, the case for grammar schools. However, I shall not dodge the question. The


proportion should be about 20 per cent. to 25 per cent., but I appreciate that many people have different opinions about it.
It is significant that philosophies as different as those found in the United States and in the Soviet Union operate selective education. Each country tries to get its brightest children into special schools. The United Kingdom operates a similar policy, with selective schools for our brightest musicians and for those involved in physical education. Selective schools are not such a novel idea as Opposition Members would have us believe.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Pawsey: I have given way a great deal, and I wish now to get on with my speech.
A fundamental principle of the Bill is that it creates funds that can be used for experimental purposes. New clause 1, as it is drafted, would preclude one part of the current state education system from taking part in those experiments. The Opposition are being unduly vindictive and are allowing their spite and prejudice to show.
5.15 pm
The Education Act 1976 sought to remove choice from local education authorities and parents, but one of the Conservation Government's first acts when they came to office was to repeal that Act. It is interesting that the hon. Member for Durham, North referred to parental choice, but if the Opposition truly believe in parental choice why do they not support the present education system with the choice that currently exists—the choice that allows local education authorities to decide the system which best suits their locality? Why should educational specific grants not be used to aid children in grammar schools? They are part of society in precisely the same way as are the children who attend comprehensive schools. They are part of the state education system, and it is vindictive to try to exclude them. The hon. Gentleman will recall that the parents of children attending grammar schools pay rates and taxes just as do the parents of children who attend comprehensive schools. Their children are taking advantage of a system that still permits some parental preference. Why should they be singled out for discrimination in new clause 1? Why should they be discriminated against in the way argued by the hon. Gentleman? Why can they not be part of the new scheme, which will allow grammar schools to receive funds from the system?
The reason why Opposition Members argue as they do is not based on educational grounds but on ideology, and nothing that they say will persuade the House otherwise.

Mr. Radice: On what basis is the hon. Gentleman arguing?

Mr. Pawsey: I am arguing from personal experience. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I have personal experience of the state sector because I was educated in it.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Only in a secondary modern school.

Mr. Pawsey: In elementary school and in technical school. The hon. Gentleman has chosen the wrong man to argue with. I went to an elementary school and to a technical school, and my six sons were educated in the

state sector. I did not opt out, and I probably know better than does any other hon. Member exactly what the state sector is about. It is significant that my children and I were educated in that sector, and I shall not listen to the hon. Gentleman's strictures on the matter.

Mr. Radice: I assume from the hon. Gentleman's remarks that all his children went to comprehensive schools—

Mr. Freud: Only six.

Mr. Radice: I assume that six of his children went to comprehensive schools and that they were successful, so what is the hon. Gentleman worrying about?

Mr. Pawsey: The hon. Gentleman is wrong to suppose that.

Mr. Freud: Six children so far.

Mr. Pawsey: I must not follow hon. Members down the road which they are signposting. My constituency of Rugby is in Warwickshire, which has maintained grammar schools, and five of my sons went to grammar schools. My sixth son did not, but he is not regarded— as the hon Member for Durham, North sought to imply during his speech — as a failure. Children who do not attend selective schools are not failures, and I should be grateful if Opposition Members would get that into their heads.
I do not understand why the Opposition believe that the only good secondary school is a comprehensive school. That is clearly not the case. In this debate we should discuss ways of improving education, and I am convinced that the Bill, by allowing some experimentation, will assist education generally. It is significant that we had to introduce the technical initiative using funds provided by the Manpower Services Commission. If this Bill required any justification, there it is; it is ridiculous that the Department of Education and Science and the local education authorities have the schools, but only the MSC has the money. The Secretary of State had no powers to provide such a facility.
For that reason, if for no other, the House should support the Bill. I hope that some Labour Members will retain open minds and might be persuaded, even now, to vote for the Bill.

Mr. Michael Stern: I rise to make a brief contribution because I was particularly struck by the claim of the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) that the policy adopted by his party, of abolishing the assisted places scheme, was a policy free of political bigotry. If, after the millenium the hon. Gentleman's party was given the opportunity to introduce its policy, it would act drastically to reduce or eliminate the only opportunity of choice for many children who otherwise would be at the direction of the local authority as to their choice of schooling. If that was not a policy of bigotry, I could describe it only as a policy of another word with the same meaning.
The assisted places scheme, which both Labour and Liberal Members take delight in attacking, gives wider opportunity in education for the children of less well-off parents. I find it difficult to comprehend why such an honest and sincere aim can prove to be so difficult to swallow for Opposition Members. In 1982, 228 schools participated in this scheme and 4,400 pupils took up places


under it. Some 64 per cent. of the places taken up under the scheme went to the children of families whose income was less than £150 a week.

Mr. Freud: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. The reason why we take exception to the scheme is not that able children are sent to good schools but that they are sent to good independent schools. The debate has argued that there are good schools in the public sector. We mind that the assisted places scheme is confined to the private sector.

Mr. Stern: The hon. Gentleman, while seeking to give an explanation, betrayed his cause because he used the word "sent". The point of assisted places scheme is that children are not sent but are given the opportunity to go.
I can illustrate my point by saying that the vast majority of places on the scheme go to children of families of below average income.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: How many families who receive supplementary benefit gain from the scheme? The hon. Gentleman will find that few of those who are on really low incomes do so.

Mr. Stern: I shall not argue with the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) about the definition of low income. The Conservative Party would not be claiming the universality of compassion if we said, by the definition that I just used, that below two thirds of average income could be defined as low income.
As an illustration of the pupils and the families at whom the scheme is aimed, I quote an incident in the city that I have the honour to represent. The daughter of a herdsman outside the city achieved a place at one of the central city schools. She would not have achieved that had it not been for the scheme. She is enjoying the benefits of education that would have been impossible for her without the scheme.
It is unfortunate that in other areas the dictatorial attitudes of local authorities are designed to frustrate the workings of the scheme. There are many counties and education authorities whose attitude to the scheme is to take every opportunity to stop parents from exercising their choice under it. As the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West I am ashamed to say that the county of Avon is among the authorities that so frustrate the initiatives of parents and the desires of pupils. However, I am delighted to be able to say that I came here immediately after a spell on the education committee of the London borough of Ealing, with which my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) is acquainted. There we took the attitude that if parents and children decided to exercise their options under the scheme, it was none of our business. I suggest to Labour Members who seek to take away opportunities from people who desperately want them that they could follow the same attitude.

Mr. Richard Tracey: Various hon. Members have described the Bill as a nasty little Bill. I feel that I must rise to do my bit to rebut some of the pernicious nonsense from such hon. Members. We have heard from the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), a gentleman who admits that he has been educated at a grammar school, which gave him an opportunity similar to that given to me, to aspire to this august place. However, he wants to kick the ladder away, as do other members of his party.
I remind the hon. Gentleman of something that I saw reported on BBC television two or three years ago—that

in his city of Sheffield, events such as those described by my hon. Friend the Minister are taking place. People buy the more expensive houses to move themselves into the area where the better comprehensive schools are. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman would wish to try to deny that, but that was the situation two or three years ago. It will happen in more and more places as time goes on.
The most glaring examples of hypocrisy are corning from the Opposition Benches, from two who have attacked the assisted places scheme. One such, the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud), was according to the book, educated at Dartington Hall and St. Paul's. The hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) told us on Second Reading that he was educated at Winchester and Magdalen college, Oxford. What has happened to them along the way? I ask myself whether they, in the dormitory when they were little boys, cuddled their stuffed bloodhounds and said to themselves, "Oh we do hate this place and when we are grown men we must campaign in the Houses of Parliament to stop other people going along this pernicious road of success. We must make sure that they go somewhere else. We must kick away the ladders that our wealthy parents have given us and which the assisted places scheme gives to others."
My hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security said when he was Under-Secretary of State for Education that the aim of the scheme was
to widen the educational opportunities available to children from financially less well-off homes by helping with the cost of tuition fees where parents cannot afford the full or the partial cost."—[Official Report, 9 February 1983; Vol. 36, c. 1093.]
That is a laudable aim. We must ask in the debate, as Opposition Members choose to open the discussion up, whether my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State intends to channel money from the Bill for this purpose. We are told that the Government wish to take away money from the assisted places scheme. Has the scheme been a success story? The answer must be yes.
5.30 pm
In September 1982, we heard that 4,400 pupils had taken up assisted places at schools in England, and that two thirds of that intake had spent at least the two previous years in maintained schools. About four out of 10 of the new assisted places pupils came from families whose income was below two thirds of the average family income in this country. May I point out to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish that that figure is well known. Another one third came from homes where the income was less than the average family income.
I shall give examples of children going to schools with the help of the assisted places scheme. Let me quote again my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North. He said on 9 February this year:
One example is Mark, a West Indian boy from Lichfield who gained an assisted place in 1981. His single parent mother is a shop assistant and does not have to pay anything towards his fees … Her child is having an opportunity that he would not have otherwise.
He gave another example:
Martin from Wolverhampton is benefiting also. His father, a bus driver, wishes some of his other six children could have had the same opportunity." — [Official Report, 9 February 1983; Vol. 36, c. 1095.]
Those are the kind of examples that I give Opposition Members. I wonder whether they would like to face the parents and repeat some of the things that they have said today.
Let us move to 1983. An increased number of assisted places have been granted. Now, 13,000 children in England participate in the scheme. The cost has been budgeted at £16·5 million for the financial year 1983–84. A similar percentage come from families whose income is below two thirds of the average family income, and a similar percentage from homes where the income is less than the average family income.
Perhaps the crucial aspect of the scheme is that the major beneficiaries of the scheme are single parent families and unemployed people—the very people that this Conservative Government seek to help through this scheme. Woe betide Opposition Members who seek to criticise that help.
In cases where the relevant parental income is less than £5,616, it is encouraging to know that the scheme is fulfilling the original objectives of its supporters. Incidentally, one group that is profiting from this scheme is the children of ministers of religion.
I do not understand why Opposition Members seek to criticise the scheme so energetically, unless it is through spite or, as I suggested at the beginning of my comments, through hypocrisy. According to a MORI poll conducted in January of this year, no fewer than 62 per cent. of the public approve of the scheme. Opposition Members should bear that in mind before they face the electorate again. It is perhaps because of their opposition to well thoughtout schemes such a as this from the Conservative Government that they suffered such a trouncing in the June election.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Bob Dunn): I am delighted to respond to the debate, because it has enabled us to elicit certain information from the Opposition parties about their attitudes to the private sector. It is well known that the Labour party, if in government, would abolish the private sector, and take away funding for pupils at assisted places schools. That would cause monumental disruption for those children and be pernicious in the extreme. The Liberal party, on the other hand, would stop any advances and would phase out the money under the assisted places scheme until the scheme did not exist.
The difference between the two parties is simple. The Labour party would abolish and kill immediately, while the Liberal party would go in for a process of slow strangulation. In both cases, the private sector would be a corpse in the end. As my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) said, it is no surprise that they are on the Opposition Benches and that we are on the Government Benches.
In considering the intentions behind these two ill-conceived new clauses, I am reminded of Dr. Johnson's comments about Rousseau and Voltaire. I might say about these two new clauses, as he said:
It is difficult to apportion the degree of iniquity between them".
The two new clauses reveal the true views of the Opposition parties on parental choice and educational opportunities. I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends will join me in soundly defeating them this evening.
I remind Opposition Members that it is not immoral, illegal or wrong for an authority to have a selective system

of secondary education. It is for local education authorities to take a view on the form and pattern of secondary education that is best suited to local circumstances and parents' preferences. If LEAs wish to propose any of the steps set out in sections 12 to 15 of the Education Act 1980, they must publish proposals and go through the relevant statutory procedures, and, subject to certain exceptions, those proposals are decided by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State. In other words, the LEA proposes and my right hon. Friend decides. His is a purely reactive role.
We on the Government Benches fully appreciate that the Labour Government deprived LEAs of that freedom in their 1976 Act. We restored it. We believed, as we believe now, that there should be variety in the provision that is made for secondary education, in accordance with local circumstances and parents' wishes. Local education authorities are free once more to consider patterns of school organisation that include grammar schools. I have done no more than remind them that they again have that freedom, thanks to the election of a Conservative Government in 1979. If an authority publishes proposals to reintroduce grammar schools, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will decide those proposals on their merits and in the interests of all the children concerned.
The Government's record shows that we look at proposals on their individual merits. Since 1979 we have approved 22 sets of proposals to end selection, one to establish a grammar school and five to amalgamate grammar schools. As for rejections, six were to end selection, two were for new grammar schools, and one was for an amalgamation. In Committee I confirmed that the use of education support grants to set up new grammar schools was not in the list of possible uses for those grants. My right hon. Friend will shortly discuss the list with representatives of the AMA and the ACC.
New clause 1 concerns something different and more pernicious. It is meant to prevent local education authorities from using education support grants for any purpose whatever in selective schools, be it improvements in mathematics or for any of the items on the shopping list that we intend to create. This is an attack on the discretion of LEAs, and it should be rejected on that ground.
Before I come to new clause 2, I shall have a little curtain-raiser. We heard a great deal from the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud). Indeed, I think he still believes that the Lib-Lab pact is rosy and kind and will benefit the British people. In 1976, the hon. Gentleman was a member of the Standing Committee that considered the Labour Government's Education Bill. The hon. Gentleman, who then represented Isle of Ely, was the Liberal party's education spokesman. He was, therefore, theoretically in opposition.
In Committee there were 68 Divisions, one of which was on the sittings motion, when the hon. Gentleman voted with the Conservative Opposition. There were a further 12 occasions when he voted in Committee. On two occasions he voted with the Conservative Opposition and on 10 he voted with the Labour Government. On 55 occasions, when further Divisions were called, he did not vote. If silence is consent, the hon. Gentleman consented with all the vigour that he could muster to the 1976 Bill.
The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East is against choice. The Liberal party is as opposed to choice as the Labour party. That was clear in Committee in 1976


during the Lib-Lab pact, which ended in a lovers' tiff. We saw the pact operating in Committee when it was in full flow.
New clause 2, which was introduced by the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East seeks to transfer resources that have been allocated to the assisted places scheme to the new education support grants.

Mr. Flannery: What choice did the 80 per cent. of children have who failed the 11-plus?

Mr. Dunn: Unlike many other Members, I can give a personal account of a child faced with one average to mediocre school and served by one catchment area. I want no child to be faced with such a limited and debilitating choice.

Mr. Flannery: Answer the question.

Mr. Dunn: Our proposals and the thrust of our legislative structure has been to open up choice for our children.

Mr. Flannery: I asked a question and I should like an answer.

Mr. Dunn: I have chosen to answer the hon. Gentleman's question. If the hon. Gentleman does not like my answer, he can lump it. The assisted places scheme is now well established, and, is an accepted part of education provision. There is no question of the schemes being wound up in the way that has been suggested during the debate.

Mr. Flannery: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I asked a straightforward question about children who failed the 11-plus examination. The Minister said that he would answer the question but he has moved to another subject.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): It is not unusual in this place for hon. Members to be displeased by the answers that they receive from Ministers. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) has not raised a point of order.

Mr. Dunn: I am grateful for your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The assisted places scheme has been successful in widening the educational opportunities open to children from less well-off families. It has enabled them to enjoy the best of the secondary education that is provided in good independent schools. After three years' intakes, about 13,000 children in England are benefiting from the scheme. As the scheme becomes fully implemented, with children progressing right through the schools, the total number will grow to nearly 40,000. That will represent not very far short of 15 per cent. of all pupils of secondary age in independent schools. Moreover, the 223 schools that are in the scheme are among the very best in the country. We are opening up, typically, a third of the places in those schools to pupils from low income families who are selected on merit alone.
If Opposition Members had their way, independent schools would have to close their doors to thousands of deserving children whose parents could not afford the fees. Let there be no mistake about that. The assistance that we give is much concentrated on those who most need it. The income scale is a steep one and it is aimed precisely to

achieve the end to which I have just referred. The House will be aware that 70 per cent. of the places provided by the scheme go to children from families whose incomes are below the average and that 40 per cent. of the places go to pupils families' whose income is low. In the latter instance, the families obtain full fee remission.
The returns that we have received suggest that a high proportion of the children assisted come from broken homes. Many others have parents who are unemployed through redundancy, sickness or disablement, or because they have retired. I am not referring solely to middle-class parents who have fallen on hard times. The parents of the children who are assisted do not show the bias of Labour Members. They include a high proportion of manual workers, such as bus drivers, railway signalmen and miners. Many parents who fall within low-paid categories have children who are assisted by the scheme. The Government are committed to widening opportunities and choice and the assisted places scheme is a fine example of that commitment.
The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East, as I have said, is the Liberal party's education spokesman. I am glad that he is so well supported by his hon. Friends. Apart from the hon. Gentleman, the Liberal Bench is conspicuously empty. I have two observations to make about his party. To try to define Liberal party education policy is rather like trying to strangle a jelly. It is impossible to know where the hon. Gentleman stands and impossible to know where his party stands.

Mr. Freud: The Minister should read the Liberal party's manifesto.

Mr. Dunn: It is impossible to foresee the implications of its "policy".

Mr. Freud: rose——

Mr. Dunn: Those who served on the—

Mr. Freud: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Dunn: I shall give way in my own time. I remind those who served in Committee that there was one occasion when the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East had to pray in aid a Labour party document. That must have given the Labour party a great deal of moral support.
If the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East continues to drive down the middle of the road, he will collide, sooner or later, with a bollard. The Government look forward to the hon. Gentleman's continued support of Socialist policies because there is no doubt, however benign the hon. Gentleman may be, that in truth he is a Socialist. We must have no doubts about that. I must advise my right hon. Friends to reject the clauses.

Mr. Radice: The Opposition are against the Bill partly because it takes away local authority money to spend on purposes which cause us concern. We tabled new clause 1 because the Minister continues to make speeches during weekends in favour of selection and grammar schools. We were rightly concerned about the way in which local government money would be used.
We have argued during the debate—I believe rightly — that the old system, which included the 11-plus examination, was unfair. It was a selective system in which the majority of children failed the 11-plus and went to secondary modern schools. We have argued that. it was wasteful and we prayed in aid the reports which were


commissioned by Conservative Governments, including the Crowther, Newsom and Robbins reports. Those reports stated that there was a great waste of human potential under the old selective system. We have said also that it was a divisive system socially.
It is true that there are not many grammar schools left. Under the Conservative Administration their number has been reduced by a quarter. We did not hear about that from the Minister but I congratulate him on his Government's record. It is a proud record, and the Minister in a benign way is helping the spread of the comprehensives. I am also glad that he will not use this money to support the setting up of new grammar schools. We managed to tease that out of him. He was reticent about it in Committee. I made that point, and the Minister just nodded his head. However, this time he has actually announced his intention, and it is a move forward for which I thank him.
There are problems with the comprehensive system of education. There are problems with schools, and external problems associated with mass unemployment and inequality of opportunity. It was interesting to hear the arguments of Conservative Members about the problem of the neighbourhood comprehensive and the comprehensives in the richer areas. Parents buy houses in those areas because they want their children to go to better schools. It was interesting that Conservative Members should use that argument, because schools in themselves cannot make a great difference, if there is already an inequality of housing.
The Secretary of State and I have argued and will continue to argue about spending cuts. There is also a problem of falling rolls. However, such matters are external to the education system. Schools also face the internal problems of devising exams and curricula that are suitable for all children. We shall return to discussing those problems.
The Under-Secretary referred to ILEA banding. The ILEA banded to create genuine comprehensives with a broad range of ability in each school. My children went through that system, and it seems to be a fair system. The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) talked about the difficulty under the selective system of students not being able to move from one school to another. He argued that children could move, while I said that they could not. There is a considerable amount of mixed ability teaching in the comprehensive system. Where there is streaming, there is movement between streams. The hon. Gentleman was less than fair in his arguments on that point.

Mr. Greenway: That is the crucial point. If there is streaming, there can be movement between one stream and another, depending on a child's improved performance. My point was that in too many comprehensive schools there is only mixed ability teaching. By definition, that means that there is no movement between one band and another because there is no streaming or setting.

Mr. Radice: The hon. Gentleman has great experience of education, and he knows that the examination system sets a limit to any mixed ability teaching. There is never mixed ability teaching after the third year. I think that the hon. Gentleman will accept that point.

Mr. Greenway: No.

Mr. Radice: There is streaming. Exams and O-level and A-level classes influence the whole system.

Mr. Greenway: I do not wish to take up the hon. Gentleman's time. I seek only to pursue an important educational argument. There are comprehensive schools —I am not moving away from my commitment to them — in which children are allowed to sit not O-level exams, but only the CSE examination. There is mixed ability teaching in those schools through to the fifth year. That is undeniable and I can take the hon. Gentleman to such schools.

Mr. Radice: The hon. Gentleman and I can discuss that issue. Perhaps he will name those schools and we can discuss them afterwards. I believe that all children ought to be able to take the exams that they want to sit. That is one reason why an early decision should be taken on amalgamating the O-level and CSE exams. So far the Secretary of State has declined to take that decision.

Mr. Dunn: Does the hon. Gentleman approve of selection, streaming, setting or banding within comprehensive schools?

Mr. Radice: There should be as little streaming and setting as possible under the present examination system. That is my off-the-cuff definition. Perhaps we can discuss that matter later.

Mr. Flannery: Does my hon. Friend agree with my earlier statement that the comprehensive school is not a finished item on the education agenda, and that within different comprehensive schools — although we are accused of not experimenting — there are differing opinions? There is nothing wrong in that. In time, certain sections will overcome others. I am against streaming. I may be defeated, but there is an honourable conflict of opinion on this matter which is as yet far from being concluded.

Mr. Radice: I thank my hon. Friend for his definition of the problem, and I am sure that it is right.
The comprehensives have been a success——

Mr. Greenway: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Radice: I have given way four times, and I think that it would be wrong to give way again. We must try to conclude the debate, as there is other business to discuss.

Mr. Greenway: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Radice: I have given way twice to the hon. Gentleman, and I shall not give way any more. We can discuss this matter later.
The comprehensives have been a success. The Secretary of State and I agree that during the past decade A-level results in the maintained sector have marginally improved. They have certainly not worsened, as the prophesiers of doom said. The O-level results have also improved considerably.
The results among the less academic groupings are far better than they have ever been. There are other advantages to which my hon. Friends have referred, such as the enriched curriculum and the social advantages that the comprehensive school has over the old system. It is time that we forgot about grammar schools and the selective system—this red herring of selection which the Under-Secretary keeps raising in his weekend speeches


—and improved the education system for the country as a whole. We need to do that, and I urge my hon. Friends to vote for our new clause, and that tabled by the alliance.

Mr. Freud: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) has no right to address the House again.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 152, Noes 238.

Division No. 88]
[6 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Godman, Dr Norman


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Golding, John


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Gould, Bryan


Barnett, Guy
Gourlay, Harry


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Beith, A. J.
Hardy, Peter


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Bermingham, Gerald
Haynes, Frank


Bidwell, Sydney
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Blair, Anthony
Heffer, Eric S.


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Boyes, Roland
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Home Robertson, John


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Howells, Geraint


Caborn, Richard
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Campbell, Ian
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Canavan, Dennis
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cartwright, John
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Clarke, Thomas
Kirkwood, Archibald


Clay, Robert
Lambie, David


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Lamond, James


Cohen, Harry
Leighton, Ronald


Coleman, Donald
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Corbett, Robin
McCartney, Hugh


Corbyn, Jeremy
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Cowans, Harry
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Craigen, J. M.
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Crowther, Stan
Madden, Max


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Marek, Dr John


Cunningham, Dr John
Martin, Michael


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Maxton, John


Deakins, Eric
Maynard, Miss Joan


Dewar, Donald
Meacher, Michael


Dixon, Donald
Meadowcroft, Michael


Dormand, Jack
Michie, William


Douglas, Dick
Mikardo, Ian


Dubs, Alfred
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Duffy, A. E. P.
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Eastham, Ken
Nellist, David


Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n SE)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Ellis, Raymond
Brien, William


Evans, loan (Cynon Valley)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Ewing, Harry
Park, George


Fatchett, Derek
Patchett, Terry


Faulds, Andrew
Penhaiigon, David


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Pike, Peter


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Fisher, Mark
Prescott, John


Flannery, Martin
Radice, Giles


Forrester, John
Randall, Stuart


Foster, Derek
Redmond, M.


Freud, Clement
Richardson, Ms Jo


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)





Robertson, George
Soley, Clive


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Spearing, Nigel


Rogers, Allan
Steel, Rt Hon David


Rooker, J. W.
Stott, Roger


Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Sheerman, Barry
Wainwright, R.


Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)
Wareing, Robert


Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)
Winnick, David


Silkin, Rt Hon J.
Woodall, Alec


Skinner, Dennis



Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Mr. James Hamilton and Mr. John McWilliam.


Snape, Peter





NOES


Adley, Robert
Favell, Anthony


Alexander, Richard
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Amess, David
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Arnold, Tom
Fookes, Miss Janet


Ashby, David
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Aspinwall, Jack
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Fox, Marcus


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Franks, Cecil


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Freeman, Roger


Baldry, Anthony
Fry, Peter


Batiste, Spencer
Gale, Roger


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Galley, Roy


Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Benyon, William
Goodlad, Alastair


Berry, Sir Anthony
Gow, Ian


Best, Keith
Gower, Sir Raymond


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Grant, Sir Anthony


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Greenway, Harry


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Gregory, Conal


Body, Richard
Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Bottomley, Peter
Ground, Patrick


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Grylls, Michael


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Gummer, John Selwyn


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bright, Graham
Hanley, Jeremy


Brinton, Tim
Hannam, John


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Bruinvels, Peter
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)


Budgen, Nick
Hawksley, Warren


Bulmer, Esmond
Hayes, J.


Burt, Alistair
Hayhoe, Barney


Butterfill, John
Hayward, Robert


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Carttiss, Michael
Heddle, John


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Henderson, Barry


Chapman, Sydney
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Chope, Christopher
Hill, James


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Hirst, Michael


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Clarke Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Holt, Richard


Clegg, Sir Walter
Hooson, Tom


Cockeram, Eric
Hordern, Peter


Colvin, Michael
Howard, Michael


Conway, Derek
Howarth, Aian (Stratf'd-on-A)


Cope, John
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Couchman, James
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Dicks, T.
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Dorrell, Stephen
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Hunter, Andrew


Dunn, Robert
Jessel, Toby


Durant, Tony
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dykes, Hugh
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Eggar, Tim
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Emery, Sir Peter
Key, Robert


Evennett, David
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Eyre, Reginald
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Fallon, Michael
Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)






Knowles, Michael
Pollock, Alexander


Knox, David
Porter, Barry


Lang, Ian
Powell, William (Corby)


Lawler, Geoffrey
Powley, John


Lawrence, Ivan
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Raffan, Keith


Lightbown, David
Rathbone, Tim


Lilley, Peter
Renton, Tim


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Rhodes James, Robert


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Lord, Michael
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lyell, Nicholas
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


McCrindle, Robert
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Roe, Mrs Marion


Macfarlane, Neil
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Sayeed, Jonathan


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Silvester, Fred


McQuarrie, Albert
Sims, Roger


Madel, David
Skeet, T. H. H.


Major, John
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Malins, Humfrey
Spence, John


Malone, Gerald
Spencer, D.


Maples, John
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Marland, Paul
Steen, Anthony


Marlow, Antony
Stern, Michael


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Mates, Michael
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Mather, Carol
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Maude, Francis
Stradling Thomas, J.


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mellor, David
Terlezki, Stefan


Merchant, Piers
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Thornton, Malcolm


Moate, Roger
Thurnham, Peter


Moore, John
Tracey, Richard


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Moynihan, Hon C.
Walden, George


Mudd, David
Wall, Sir Patrick


Murphy, Christopher
Ward, John


Neale, Gerrard
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Needham, Richard
Warren, Kenneth


Neubert, Michael
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Nicholls, Patrick
Wheeler, John


Norris, Steven
Whitney, Raymond


Onslow, Cranley
Wilkinson, John


Oppenheim, Philip
Wood, Timothy


Osborn, Sir John
Yeo, Tim


Ottaway, Richard
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Parris, Matthew



Pawsey, James
Tellers for the Noes:


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and Mr. David Hunt.


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 2

FUNDING FOR EDUCATION SUPPORT GRANTS

`Expenditure previously incurred under sections 17 and 18 of the Education Act 1980 shall be used by the Secretary of State for the provision of education support grants.'.—[Mr. Beith.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 152, Noes 236.

Divison No. 89]
[6.09 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Barnett, Guy


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Beckett, Mrs Margaret


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Beith, A. J.





Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Bermingham, Gerald
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Bidwell, Sydney
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Blair, Anthony
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Kirkwood, Archibald


Boyes, Roland
Lambie, David


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Lamond, James


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Leighton, Ronald


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Bruce, Malcolm
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Caborn, Richard
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
McCartney, Hugh


Campbell, Ian
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Campbell-Savours, Dale
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Canavan, Dennis
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Maclennan, Robert


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
McWilliam, John


Clarke, Thomas
Madden, Max


Clay, Robert
Marek, Dr John


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Martin, Michael


Cohen, Harry
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Coleman, Donald
Maxton, John


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Maynard, Miss Joan


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Meacher, Michael


Corbett, Robin
Michie, William


Corbyn, Jeremy
Mikardo, Ian


Cowans, Harry
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Craigen, J. M.
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Crowther, Stan
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Nellist, David


Cunningham, Dr John
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
O'Brien, William


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Deakins, Eric
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Dewar, Donald
Park, George


Dixon, Donald
Patchett, Terry


Dormand, Jack
Penhaligon, David


Douglas, Dick
Pike, Peter


Dubs, Alfred
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Prescott, John


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Radice, Giles


Eastham, Ken
Randall, Stuart


Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n SE)
Redmond, M.


Ellis, Raymond
Richardson, Ms Jo


Evans, Ioan (Cynon Valley)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Robertson, George


Ewing, Harry
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Fatchett, Derek
Rogers, Allan


Faulds, Andrew
Rooker, J. W.


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Fisher, Mark
Sheerman, Barry


Flannery, Martin
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Forrester, John
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Freud, Clement
Short, Mrs H.(W'hampt'n NE)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Godman, Dr Norman
Skinner, Dennis


Golding, John
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Gould, Bryan
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Gourlay, Harry
Snape, Peter


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Soley, Clive


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Spearing, Nigel


Hardy, Peter
Steel, Rt Hon David


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Stott, Roger


Haynes, Frank
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Heffer, Eric S.
Wallace, James


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Wareing, Robert


Home Robertson, John
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Howells, Geraint
Winnick, David


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)



Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Mr. John Cartwright and Mr. Michael Meadowcroft.


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)





NOES


Adley, Robert
Arnold, Tom


Alexander, Richard
Ashby, David


Amess, David
Aspinwall, Jack






Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Grylls, Michael


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Gummer, John Selwyn


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Baldry, Anthony
Hampson, Dr Keith


Batiste, Spencer
Hanley, Jeremy


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Hannam, John


Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Benyon, William
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Berry, Sir Anthony
Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)


Best, Keith
Hawksley, Warren


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Hayes, J.


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Hayhoe, Barney


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Hayward, Robert


Body, Richard
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Henderson, Barry


Bottomley, Peter
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Hill, James


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hirst, Michael


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Bright, Graham
Holt, Richard


Brinton, Tim
Hooson, Tom


Bruinvels, Peter
Hordern, Peter


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Howard, Michael


Budgen, Nick
Howarth, Alan (Stratfd-on-A)


Bulmer, Esmond
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Burt, Alistair
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)


Butterfill, John
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Carttiss, Michael
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hunter, Andrew


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Jessel, Toby


Chapman, Sydney
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Chope, Christopher
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Key, Robert


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Clarke Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Clegg, Sir Walter
Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)


Cockeram, Eric
Knowles, Michael


Colvin, Michael
Knox, David


Conway, Derek
Lang, Ian


Cope, John
Lawler, Geoffrey


Couchman, James
Lawrence, Ivan


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Dicks, T.
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Dorrell, Stephen
Lightbown, David


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Lilley, Peter


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Lloyd, Ian (Havant)


Dunn, Robert
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Durant, Tony
Lord, Michael


Dykes, Hugh
Lyell, Nicholas


Emery, Sir Peter
McCrindle, Robert


Evennett, David
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Eyre, Reginald
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Fallon, Michael
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Favell, Anthony
McQuarrie, Albert


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Madel, David


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Major, John


Fookes, Miss Janet
Malins, Humfrey


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Malone, Gerald


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Maples, John


Fox, Marcus
Marland, Paul


Franks, Cecil
Marlow, Antony


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Freeman, Roger
Mates, Michael


Fry, Peter
Mather, Carol


Gale, Roger
Maude, Francis


Galley, Roy
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Goodlad, Alastair
Mellor, David


Gow, Ian
Merchant, Piers


Gower, Sir Raymond
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Grant, Sir Anthony
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Greenway, Harry
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Gregory, Conal
Moate, Roger


Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)
Moore, John


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Ground, Patrick
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)





Moynihan, Hon C.
Spence, John


Mudd, David
Spencer, D.


Murphy, Christopher
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Neale, Gerrard
Steen, Anthony


Needham, Richard
Stern, Michael


Neubert, Michael
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Nicholls, Patrick
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Norris, Steven
Stradling Thomas, J.


Onslow, Cranley
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Oppenheim, Philip
Temple-Morris, Peter


Osborn, Sir John
Terlezki, Stefan


Ottaway, Richard
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Parris, Matthew
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Pawsey, James
Thornton, Malcolm


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Thurnham, Peter


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Tracey, Richard


Pollock, Alexander
Twinn, Dr Ian


Porter, Barry
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Powell, William (Corby)
Walden, George


Powley, John
Wall, Sir Patrick


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Waller, Gary


Proctor, K. Harvey
Ward, John


Raffan, Keith
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Rathbone, Tim
Warren, Kenneth


Renton, Tim
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Rhodes James, Robert
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Wheeler, John


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Whitney, Raymond


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Wilkinson, John


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Wood, Timothy


Roe, Mrs Marion
Yeo, Tim


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Younger, Rt Hon George


Sayeed, Jonathan



Sims, Roger
Tellers for the Noes:


Skeet, T. H. H.
Mr. David Hunt and Mr. Tristan Garel-Jonei.


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 3

NURSERY SCHOOLS

'In any year in which educational support grants are made at least 20 per cent. of expenditure shall be used for projects relating to nursery schools or classes.'.—[Mr Radice.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Radice: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, I understand that it will be convenient to discuss at the same time new clause 5.

SPECIAL SCHOOLS OR REMEDIAL PUPILS

'In any year in which educational support grants are made. at least 20 per cent. of any such expenditure shall telate to projects dealing with special schools or remedial pupils.'.

Mr. Radice: The purpose of the two new clauses is to encourage projects related to nursery, remedial and special education. If my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will deal with new clause 5 and special and remedial education.
I wish to speak briefly about nursery education. More than 10 years after the Plowden report and the White Paper on nursery provision, we are still a very long way from the goal of places being available for all those who want them for their children. The White Paper, I believe, was issued when the present Prime Minister was Secretary of State for Education and Science. It said that the Government's aim was that, within the next 10 years, nursery education


should become available without charge, within the limits estimated by Plowden, to three and four-year-olds whose parents wished them to benefit from it.
The Plowden estimate was that provision would be needed for 90 per cent. of four-year-olds and 50 per cent. of three-year-olds. The sad truth is that today places are available for slightly more than 40 per cent. of all three and four-year-olds. So we have not made the progress in 10 years that the Prime Minister envisaged when she was Secretary of State.

Mr. David Madel: May we know what age range we are talking about? The new clause refers to "nursery schools or classes". Does that mean that the 20 per cent. of expenditure referred to would be made available for all three to five-year-olds, or is it slanted more towards four-year-olds and rising-fives?

Mr. Radice: It is the whole range—three to five-year-olds.
Unfortunately, Plowden's observation is still true today, that whether a mother has even a bare chance of securing a nursery place for her child depends on the accident of where she lives".
Indeed, the cuts made by some Conservative local education authorities in nursery provision in the past few years have made it even more important for mothers and fathers to take good care where they live and have their children.
I am sure that the Secretary of State will argue that a higher proportion of under-fives than ever before have some form of schooling. I am sure that I have heard that argument used by Conservative Ministers. But the truth is, as the Secretary of State knows because he has had to make the decisions, that the rate of expansion has slowed to a snail's pace compared with the record of the last Labour Government. What is more, the Government's plans, in Cmnd. 8789, are for a decline in the proportion to a little over 36 per cent. in 1985–86. That will be lower than it was in 1978–79.
We believe that the education support grants should be used, first, to encourage the conversion of surplus primary school accommodation for nursery schools or classes; secondly, to encourage local education authorities with a poor record of provision; thirdly, to encourage the establishment of nursery centres. The Secretary of State will know that those centres are established to meet the needs of parents and children on a flexible basis throughout the normal working day and that they provide children with a caring environment which also meets their educational needs. The nursery centres can also play a coordinating role and provide co-operative support for other pre-school provisions. Therefore, I should like the Secretary of State seriously to consider the new clause and the way in which we think the money should be spent.
We believe that nursery education is vital because all children benefit socially and emotionally. That is especially important for those who come from deprived homes. That is the first argument. The second argument is that we think that pre-schooling of that nature enables children to get more out of their primary schools and makes them more effective pupils. There is also an important benefit for parents, in that there is child care provision for working parents and a breathing space is provided for mothers who want to stay at home.
I hope that the Secretary of State will look carefully at the new clause on nursery education. After my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish has spoken, I hope that he will consider the issue of using special grants for special schools and remedial pupils.

Mr. Madel: I am interested that new clause 3 and new clause 5 have been bracketed together. However, the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) talked only about new clause 3 and left it to later speakers to discuss new clause 5. New clause 5 deals with the compulsory years of education and new clause 3 does not. There is an interesting mix between the two. Given that we all regard the education service as a national scheme, locally administered, if new clause 3 were passed, it would present many problems for local education authorities in view of the constraints on their spending levels.
The new clause opens up a short debate about what we should do about pre-school education—nursery school education—given the present financial climate and the constraints on local education authority spending. I was a little surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not mention the valuable role of pre-school playgroups. They are playing an increasingly important role and in many ways provide nursery education that local education authorities cannot provide, not because they do not want to provide it but because they do not have the financial wherewithal so to do.

Mr. Radice: I agree about the importance of playgroups, but we need more evidence than has been provided on the levels of provision of playgroups before we use them as an argument about inadequate nursery provision in other areas. We must admit that qualified nursery teachers are not involved in playgroups, which do not necessarily meet the educational needs of the children. That is the problem about relying on playgroups for the main provision.

Mr. Madel: As in most educational matters, the position is patchy. In some parts of the country playgroups are doing as good a job as nursery schools and in others they are not.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the use of surplus places in primary schools, both urban and rural, by nursery schools. It would help if local education authorities let preschool playgroup associations use those surplus places when the local education authority could not provide nursery education. There is an indifferent, sometimes almost hostile, attitude of some education officials, chiefs and bureaucrats to the pre-school playgroup associations. They should not only help in the use of the surplus places but there should be closer co-operation between county social service departments and education departments to see whether local education authorities, social services and pre-school playgroup associations can go some way towards meeting the spirit of new clause 3.
The sum of money envisaged in the Bill is—as the Secretary of State has said many times—not large. The Bill will bring about only a small step in curriculum development. Although I accept that the Opposition are bound to float their own ideas and fly their own kites, I cannot agree that the objects referred to in new clause 3 should be high on the list of priorities for using the money. Many matters such as curriculum development, in-service training and re-training, should take higher priority.
6.30 pm
When the Bill has become law and the education support grants have been used to bring about certain developments, the DES and the local education authorities must look about for other sources of finance which could be used to further the objects of the Bill.
Already, two and a half months after the youth training scheme took off, we find that the Manpower Services Commission is underspending on that provision. I believe that there will be an Aladdin's cave of money that the Manpower Services Commission has. I am anxious that the Secretary of State should have the key to the cave and put some of that money into the education service. We shall then be able to do many of the things that we have talked about in connection with the Bill, and which ought to be done. However, given the constraints upon local education authorities, I cannot support new clause 3.
I hope that we will recognise that in many areas preschool playgroups are doing a very good job in difficult circumstances. It should be the duty of local education authorities, as far as is practicable, to help the development of pre-school playgroup associations. They could help them by the provision of surplus school places, halls and so on. I do not disagree with the spirit of the amendment — I should like to see more nursery provisions—but we must face reality. The pressure on the LEAs is so great that other matters, such as curriculum development and in-service training, must take priority over the objectives of new clause 3.

Mrs. Renee Short: I am pleased to have the opportunity to support my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice). As president of the Campaign for Nursery Education, I campaigned for years in this cause before I came to the House. I am distressed that we have made so little progress. When the right hon. Lady the present Prime Minister produced her education White Paper, I thought, like my hon. Friend, that the golden age of nursery education had arrived. I was such a new Member of Parliament that I thought that words printed in White Papers meant something. I thought that there was to be a great leap forward in providing nursery education for children aged from three to five. However, progress has been poor.
The suggestion of the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel) that we should now go overboard for pre-school playgroups confuses the issue. The two types of provision are in no way comparable. Good preschool playgroups are usually run by former nursery teachers—by trained women who have lost their jobs or who, because of the cuts in nursery education, have not had the opportunity to work. Furthermore, very often playgroups are run in very inadequate premises.
I want the best for the three to five-year-olds at the beginning of their school life. We want the best ratio of pupils to nursery teacher, the best equipment, and the injection of the most imaginative ideas into nursery education. I hope that the Minister who replies on the clause will feel able to offer some encouragement.
We live in a multiracial society now, and nursery education, in bringing together young children of different races. as well as different sexes, in a happy, relaxed and constructive environment, is of inestimable value to society.
The child who has been to nursery school is a very confident young person by the time he or she arrives in the infant class at the age of five. That child is easily distinguished. All infant teachers will tell you that they know which children have attended nursery school. Those children have had the ability to develop their painting ability, singing and movement. It is a marvellous experience.
In our troubled society, it is more important than ever that children should learn to live together in peace and harmony. Nursery education can make a considerable contribution towards fulfilling that aim. Here we have an opportunity. We can afford it. We could use the space made available by under-utilisation of infant classes, and very little capital investment would be required. This is a marvellous time to develop nursery education with the resources that would be available under the new clause. I hope that the House will support the clause.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I endorse the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) on the importance of starting right at school. Without good nursery education, resources put into the education system later on will be wasted. The hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel) said that when resources were scarce it would be difficult to justify putting money into nursery education. However, one of the arguments for experimentation in this area is that by experimenting we can see what the cost would be.
Many primary schools have one or two empty classrooms. The capital charges on those rooms have to be paid, whether or not they are occupied. The heating systems are usually integrated with those of the rest of the school. The classroom costs money whether it is used or not. The biggest cost is that of providing teaching. Some authorities have been developing part-time nursery education, for which a teacher would be supplied only in the morning. Salaries paid for part-time work are not very high when compared with unemployment benefit. A substantial number of trained primary school teachers, some of whom have also trained for nursery teaching, are unemployed at present, or are working outside teaching and would prefer to teach. Resources are available in the community, and with a very small amount of pump-priming money from the Government in experimental areas, it might well be possible to expand and develop nursery school provision.
Most hon. Members welcome the idea of playgroups, but are conscious that there are good ones and bad ones. I have spoken to many primary school teachers who point out that one pre-school playgroup in their catchment area is doing an excellent job, but that another one run by a different group of voluntary people is doing more damage than good, perhaps because it is pushing children to develop skills at too early a stage. The provision is patchy. It would be far better if we could replace the playgroups by state provision, or increase the supervision of them.
New clause 5 suggests using some of the money to encourage experiments in special schools and in remedial education. When I drafted the new clause, I should have included a reference to handicapped children in other schools, but on new clause 5 it is sufficient to ask the Government to give us some answers. We shall not wish to push new clause 5 to a vote.
The Warnock report was a worthwhile and useful document which demonstrated the need for the integration


of handicapped children. We debated the Education Act 1981 at some length. I do not believe that its provisions divided the House. The House divided on the fact that the Government believed that by changing the legislation, but without providing extra resources, they would substantially alter the practice in the country. The Opposition argued strongly that if we were to make the Act work, there should be some more money. I confess that some local authorities have done remarkably well in implementing the Act without the resources. However, the areas to which I go complain continually that they could do far more if the resources were available. I hope that the Government will make it clear that they will use some of this experimental money to ensure that the high hopes engendered by the 1981 Act will be realised.
When we were trying to obtain a shopping list from the Government on this legislation, all we received was the reply that they hoped that a little of the money would be made available to introduce technology for the handicapped child in special schools or integrated into general schools. This is costly equipment, and the Government must study the costs carefully. The equipment is specialised and often has to be developed with the individual child in mind. It would be useful if the Government would tell us a little more about what they intend to do—whether they intend to give small grants to encourage the adaptation of equipment for individual children and its application.
I hope that the Government will give us a great deal of information tonight on the way in which they see such schemes developing because they raise hopes. Some of this technology will enable many children, particularly the physically handicapped, to learn in school without suffering too much from their handicaps.
I want to press the Government about what they will do to insure this expensive equipment. One or two special schools using computers and other special equipment are doing some excellent work, but the major problem is that that equipment is at risk from breakdowns and occasionally from vandalism.
On talking to teachers, one finds that their biggest worry is that they put a great deal of effort into developing the resources and the type of equipment that children need to use day after day when they suffer from severe educational handicap. When a piece of equipment is stolen or damaged the educational programme can be put at risk. They want a system that does not just insure the equipment but ensures that it can be replaced quickly. I understand that several schools have developed this type of equipment which has then gone missing for three or four weeks. Teaching programmes can be jeopardised. I hope that the Government can assure us that they are studying the problem of ensuring that this equipment is always available and is not missing because of breakdown or damage.
I should like to refer to an experiment in my old constituency of Stockport, North which was carried on by the Charnwood trust and by Mrs. Wyatt. She developed a nursery school in which about half the children who attended had no handicap while the other half were handicapped in some way. That experiment has been going on for almost 10 years, and has been successful in demonstrating the way in which handicapped children can be stimulated by being integrated with non-handicapped

children. The non-handicapped children learn at nursery age to be supportive and helpful to those who are handicapped.
I hope that the Government will encourage that sort of experiment, which almost straddles these two new clauses. The work that has been done in Stockport by the Charnwood trust should be extended to other areas.
The next matter upon which I wish to press the Government is the remedial class. The Government have seen standards in schools fall because of the decrease in the number of special remedial classes available in primary schools. The number of schools that have lost the special remedial class has increased steadily because of the fall in the rolls. There is a strong case for the Government spending some of this money to try to provide special remedial teaching for small groups. It may no longer be viable to have a remedial class within a school because of the fall in rolls and the loss of staff, but there is a case for studying ways in which peripatetic teachers can be used to ensure that primary school children are given the first-class remedial teaching that has been lost.
6.45 pm
I want to deal briefly with word blindness. It is sometimes referred to as dyslexia. I believe that one or two hon. Members know that it is a problem from which I suffer considerably. I am told that with the new computers, it is possible to have one's spelling corrected by the word processor. Strictly speaking, I believe that the word processor draws to one's attention the fact that the word one is attempting to use does not exist because incorrect spellings are not contained in its memory. That sounds attractive, but I am not sure that it will solve all the problems of the youngster who suffers from word blindness, because often it is not that he does not know how to spell the word but that he uses the wrong one. One must think of all the combinations of "there" and "here" and so on. It is easy to have a word that is in the dictionary, but still to spell it incorrectly.
I hope that the Government will study all the problems of dyslexia. Whether one accepts that it exists, there is a problem which some people prefer to refer to as word blindness. I hope that a little of the money will go for developing skills to teach youngsters how to read and write so that they are not handicapped by that inability in making educational progress.
I should like the Government to deal with the problem of maladjusted children. Normal schools have too often wanted to push out the awkward child to ensure that he is put into a special school. The spirit of Warnock with its idea of integration, made it clear that the maladjusted child should be catered for in the normal school. It means that far more work needs to be done on ways of integrating the child into the school to ensure that he can be contained and educated within the system. The younger maladjusted child may often have behaviour problems while the older child often exhibits that maladjustment in truancy.

Mr. Greenway: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I absolutely agree with what he says. Does that mean that he is unhappy, as I am, about sin bins and special units into which many children are being drafted from schools because of behavioural difficulties?

Mr. Bennett: Yes. It seems to me that that is completely against the spirit of Warnock. It is utterly


wrong to assume that because a child has a behaviour problem, he can be shunted out of the school and handed to someone else. Schools often do not accept that that is their failure. In the past, during my teaching experience, I occasionally noted a certain amount of glee among various teachers at the fact that they had managed to have a child excluded from a normal school and transferred to a school for the maladjusted. That should be the occasion for sadness in a school, and an admission that it has failed to cope with the problem.
In this area there is much to be argued in favour of experimentation and the school trying to cope. It is a little odd that many schools say they are firmly in favour of integrating the handicapped child yet at the same time they want a sin bin or some other special educational provision.
I hope it will be possible to look at ways in which the normal school can not only cope with and contain these children but start to educate them. Once the barrier is broken through and the children become enthusiastic and keen about the school, the behaviour problem can nearly always be solved and children can be educated. In this society we cannot afford to waste anyone's educational skills. In many instances the youngsters who are most maladjusted can benefit a great deal if they can come to terms with education.
I press the Minister in his reply to this group of amendments to state what experiments he has in mind. Even if the Minister cannot give us a guarantee that approximately 20 per cent. of the money will be spent in this way, I hope that at least the Government have some clear indications of how much money will be spent in this experimental area, not only on high technology for the handicapped, but on genuine experiments to ensure that the quality of education is improved for those who are physically and mentally handicapped in schools and occasionally maladjusted and unwilling to accept the opportunities that are offered to them.
I urge the Government to accept that much can be done by spending a little of the experimental money in the areas I have outlined. The Government must put more resources into special remedial education and nursery education if the educational standards of the whole country are to be raised and not just those of a few selected areas such as some hon. Members seem more enthusiastic to pursue.

Mr. Flannery: I wish to support new clauses 3 and 5.
I shall deal first with new clause 3. Many years ago, when the Plowden report was published, it was studied by schools and educationists. Many new ideas emerged from the report. One idea was pre-school playgroups. Many other suggestions about primary education generally were examined. Pre-school playgroups were eagerly seized upon on a large scale as a way to avoid spending more money on nursery education. The people it was intended should run the pre-school playgroups were nobly motivated people who wanted to do the best they could. The financial provision was not sufficient for nursery education.
There is a fundamental difference between a pre-school playgroup and a nursery class or nursery school. The nursery class or nursery school has paid trained staff as well as nursery nurses and nursery teachers. As this staff costs a great deal of money, a device was adopted whereby the local authority could claim Government money if it used some of its own. This process held sway.
Discussion of the Bill, whether we like it or not, leads the House to consider large areas of education. The Bill cannot be discussed in vacuo because some of the money, little as it is, will tie up with the insufficient amount of money in the education system generally.
Those who have witnessed what happens to very young children when they first come to be trained in a nursery class or an infants class will know it is a wonderful sight to see, provided there are not large numbers of children and only one teacher.
When a child comes to school for the first time, il has just left the most important person in the world. It has had a one-to-one relationship with its mother and has had all her attention. At school the child has to get into a queue for the attention of the teacher, who is usually grossly overworked. It has to compete and, according to its own little personality, either it suffers through the competition or it finds the competition thrilling and exhilarating.
In a nursery it is important to have as few children to a teacher as possible and as much help and equipment as possible. Government Members know this very well because they tend to put their children in small classes while the rest of us have to accept the classes that are imposed on us. Children cannot be taught easily in a large class.
Any hon. Member who thinks that playgroups exist throughout the country is dreaming. This is not the case. Playgroups tend to be in middle-class areas where local young parents have the time to give to local children. Very few such parents in working class areas can volunteer to look after children or make use in an organised manner of the limited available cash.
While I do not condemn pre-school playgroups. I stress that great care must be exercised by educationists to ensure that money is not spent in this way which should he spent on proper nursery education. In primary schools many empty rooms are available in the sense that they are heated along with the rest of the school and they have a common caretaker. However, there must still be somebody to look after the children, preferably paid and they must be in charge of a proper nursery class.
The small amount of money the House is discussing is a large amount to those who need it and should be looked at against the background, where money is scarce and such provision is urgently needed. It is a crime to force schools to compete for the money available. Schools should have this money as of right to educate children.
The need for financial provision is greater in the inner city areas, where difficulties exist for children such as are not found in the more salubrious areas.
New clause 5 is important. Whether or not we differ about the amount of money, the educational matters the House is considering are of immense use to us all because we learn from one another what is the optimum.
My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) referred to remedial education. I wish to emphasise the importance of remedial education. I have seen the effect of this in a primary school. I managed to get enough money to clear out a cloakroom full of old furniture and make an attractive room for the children with a carpeted floor and some curtains. This room accommodated five or six children and the teacher. The teacher, the wife of a head teacher, worked full-time. She went round every class in the primary school and took out one or two children, with the result that those children had a very close relationship with the teacher.
A great deal of teachers' time in school these days is taken up in reading the card that gives children an instruction. It is lamentable if a child cannot read the instruction and must be given verbal instructions in a one-to-one relationship. It is vital that these children be taught to read as quickly as possible, otherwise they cannot make progress.
In the case I cited it was wonderful to have a full-time teacher taking out a few children, with the exception of virtually ineducable children. Not one child went to secondary school unable to read because one remedial teacher was able to have a close relationship with the children. The children began to love instead of dread the lesson and gradually caught up. Some children put as much as three years on their reading age in the first year of having worked with a remedial teacher.
I ask the House to draw the lesson that, if there is no remedial teacher because of cuts in staff and money, it is a crime against those children who are potential readers but who have to leave school unable to read.
I was talking only last week to a teacher at a school which has lost its remedial teacher. The headmaster is going to the homes of children who have difficulty and is spending his own time—there is no overtime in teaching — trying to help them. It is vital, however small the sum of money, that we take the greatest care to see that some of it is used to help retain remedial teachers because only by that means shall we ensure that all our children learn to read.

7 pm

Mr. Dunn: This has been an interesting debate, enlivened by the speech of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short), and we respect her knowledge, verve and determination in the matters about which she spoke.
I must apologise to the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) for missing his speech. My absence was neither deliberate nor implied rudeness to him. I shall read his remarks with interest, and if I trespass on anything he said I apologise in anticipation of his rebuke.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) referred to resources. It is the right of the Opposition to demand resources, just as it is the responsibility of the Government to find those resources and meet and answer competing needs. I hope that by the time we reach Third Reading, and in our debates on other clauses yet to be discussed, Opposition Members will give some idea of the costs of the demands that they are making on us. That is part of their duty if they are to act responsibly and put forward notions that they wish to commend to the Government or local authorities.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish referred to a scheme in Stockport and I was interested in what he said about Mrs. Wyatt and the Charnwood trust that had worked for some years. I shall be pleased to receive details of that scheme and place them before the Secretary of State when the period of consultation commences with the local authority associations. Anything that will help us to create the right pilot scheme is welcome, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman accepts that offer in the spirit in which it is given.
The hon. Gentleman referred to dyslexia. I fear to tread where angels might wish to do so—on the vexed subject

of dyslexia—but I assure him that I have noted his remarks and will ensure that that aspect of his speech is discussed in the Department. He also referred to activity in connection with special education, such as the provision of equipment to help those with sensory or physical disabilities. I am sure that he would like me to give some indication of what might be involved if that were one of the activities selected. However, I must, as he would expect, enter the caveat that this is without prejudice to the discussions that my right hon. Friend will be having shortly with the local authority associations.
I give the example of a handicapped child. Sometimes a microelectronic device would be helpful, but perhaps the child cannot use it because it is operated by a keyboard which needs normal manual dexterity. For such a child the answer may be a personally designed interface to enable him or her to bypass the keyboard. The cost of the equipment would depend on the special requirements of the child, but as a broad indication I imagine that the additional cost might be up to £300 on top of about £1,300 for the basic microelectronic equipment. The total cost of the project in the area would depend on the number of children for whom it was designed. I am interested in that aspect, as is the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish.
The question of insurance, to which the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish also referred, I undertake to look into. If he will let me have any details he has to hand where a problem has arisen, I will make inquiries about that. The responsibility for the insurance of any goods or equipment stored in the schools of a local authority must be the responsibility of the local authority, but the hon. Gentleman touched on some real fears and I take on board what he said on the subject.
The new clauses have been presented with the aim of widening the debate perhaps further than one would expect on Report. This and the next group of new clauses, if accepted, would earmark a proportion of education support grant for particular activities or parts of the education service. I welcome this opportunity to describe the Government's achievements and policies in connection with the ESG. However, it would be unfair if I did not comment in general on the effect of the two new clauses before the House and the two that are to follow. They would mean, if enacted, that 80 per cent. of expenditure supported by ESGs would be earmarked for at least an initial three-year period. I do not suggest that the areas dealt with by the new clauses are unimportant, but I am opposed to the proposal that a proportion of expenditure supported by ESGs should be earmarked in that way.
The Bill includes a number of checks and safeguards. The expenditure that can be supported by ESGs is limited, as I said in Committee, to a small proportion of the Government's plans for expenditure on education by LEAs. Indeed, the Bill provides that there will be further opportunity for Members of this House and of another place to debate the purposes for which the Government propose to use the grants. These purposes will be defined in regulations subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Furthermore, the Bill would require my right hon. Friend to consult the appropriate local authority associations before bringing the proposals to Parliament.
As I said in Committee, the need for such consultation would not exist if the new clauses were carried because about 80 per cent. of total expenditure to be incurred on education support grants would already be committed to the areas covered by the new clauses. That would diminish


the element of flexibility that I believe to be essential in conducting our negotiations with the local authority associations. That must be accepted as being an inhibiting factor to open, thorough and necessary discussions.

Mr. Flannery: The Minister knows that there is not the slightest chance of all those new clauses being carried. Will he please permit us to have just one carried and let us have some money?

Mr. Dunn: At this season of goodwill I should love to accede to the hon. Gentleman's request, but as he does not believe in Christmas — I am sure that he is not a Scrooge, but he does not believe in Christmas in the sense that we do—I cannot wear the white beard tonight.
I come to other aspects of new clause 3 because it deals with nursery education. The Government share the view of parents and experts in education about the value of nursery education, and on this issue we have common ground with Opposition Members. I must, however, draw their attention to earlier times when the Labour party was in office. As it has been the case with us, so it was the case with them, that the economic circumstances that have prevailed since the 1970s have meant that progress towards meeting the increased demand for nursery places has been gradual. Nevertheless, the numbers of children in nursery schools and nursery classes in England have continued to grow — from about 187,000 in 1977 to more than 235,000 in 1982—and the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East will welcome those figures. The proportion of three and four-year-olds receiving nursery education in 1982 was 22 per cent., the highest ever figure.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Minister confirm that some of that improvement has been due to the fact that some children who were receiving nursery education full time now receive it half time, the result being that while more are receiving nursery education, the number of hours being taught has not increased anything like so dramatically?

Mr. Dunn: I do not know the answer to that question. I undertake to obtain the details and let the House know. However, during the period of this Administration, numbers participating in nursery schools and nursery classes have risen by about 37,000 or 18 per cent., and at the same time more than 200,000 children under five are to be found in reception classes in primary schools. Overall, therefore, 40 per cent. of children aged three or four years are receiving education within the state system.
I was pleased to hear the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel) in which he welcomed the importance and worth of playgroups. The House will know that some 500,000 children are in attendance at playgroups during the course of a week. Anything along those lines which encourages and creates opportunities for parents to take their children to playgroups is welcomed by us, and I note my hon. Friend's remarks. As the father of two sons under the age of 18 months, the subject of nursery school provision is near to my heart. I cannot meet the target of my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) of having six sons; I am afraid I am too old for that.
The hon. Member fr Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) referred to deprived areas and inner city

problems, an aspect which he debates in the House from time to time. He will know that the arrangements for distributing block grant acknowledge the special demands for nursery provision in deprived areas. A crucial factor in determining how much grant an authority receives is its overall grant-related expenditure assessment. The GREA for education for under-fives takes account of the incidence of social and economic deprivation in each authority, as well as the number of under-fives. I hope that I have set the hon. Gentleman's mind slightly at rest by that explanation.
I accept that there is a demand for ever greater opportunities for nursery education, but in all honesty I must tell the House that this is not an area for further pump priming or innovative work through the support of ESGs. Much pioneering work has already been done, but the constraint is what the country, and therefore individual areas, can afford to spend.
We appreciate the intention behind new clause 5, although we believe that it suggests the wrong way to achieve it. It is our concern just as much as it is that of the Opposition that special education should get a fair share of the resources available. The difference between the Government and the Opposition is that our record is better than theirs. It was a decision of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that established the committee of inquiry under Mrs. Warnock. As the House knows, that committee reported in 1978 when another right hon. Lady was Secretary of State. However, it was left to a Conservative Government to bring in the legislation to give effect to the recommendations for changes in the law. Of course, by no means all the 224 recommendations in Warnock call for changes in the law. Many of them are aimed at practices within schools and within local education authorities and at the content of teacher-training courses.
The Education Act 1981 makes two things clear. First, ordinary schools have a responsibility towards a large minority of children with special needs. Warnock thought it might be one in six or one in seven children. These children are properly placed in ordinary schools. Since the Education Act 1944 those schools have had a duty to provide for such children according to their aptitudes and abilities. Secondly, the children who need something more than ordinary schools can offer must have their needs assessed individually by a combined professional assessment, including advice from at least three sources—educational, medical and psychological.
Within the framework laid down in legislation the Government can encourage and exhort, but detailed decisions, as ever under the partnership between central and local government, are made locally. On Second Reading my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State suggested that education support grants might be used in a limited way to support the meeting of special educational needs, possibly through assisting with the establishment of resource centres or providing microelectronic aids for handicapped children. We want to discuss those possibilities and any others that the associations might suggest with representatives of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the Association of County Councils. We shall discuss those later. However, I do not think that these discussions or the effectiveness of the scheme, assuming that Parliament passes the Bill, will be helped by rigid rules about the percentage of money to be spent on this or that object. Therefore, I strongly recommend the rejection of new clauses 3 and 5.

Mr. Radice: I cannot say that we are entirely satisfied by what the Minister has said, particularly about nursery education. He was perhaps less than full in his projection of the Government's plans. He mentioned that the rate of participation of the under-fives in nursery education is about 40 per cent. As he knows from the relevant table in his White Paper, which I have here, the plan is that the proportion of under-fives will decline to about 35 per cent. in 1984–85. This is lower than it was in 1978–79. Although at one stage, in 1980–81, spending was up to 40 per cent., it is lower now and it will get even lower, as the Minister knows, now that we no longer have falling rolls for this age group.
The Government have started to cut back on their spending in real terms and as a consequence the numbers receiving nursery education as a percentage of that age group will decline. Perhaps the Minister should have said that to the House and should not have sounded so complacent about the Government's record.
We have had a useful debate on both issues and I would therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 4

SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT

In any of the first 3 years in which education support grants are made at least 30 per cent. shall be used to encourage pupils in particular areas to stay on at school after 16 years by way of payment of educational maintenance awards."—[Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 7—

SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT (No. 2)

"( ) In any of the first three years in which education support grants are made at least 10 per cent. of the expenditure shall be used to conduct research:

(i) to measure the relationship between educational achievement and the demands made by schools of parents or guardians for cash payments to schools or others to cover expenditure on a range of activities which shall include paying for distinctive school clothing, books, school photographs, visits, bus fares to sporting fixtures, theatre tickets, material for domestic science and other craft subjects, and school fund raising activities, and
(ii) to determine how grants might be made to parents or guardians to meet such costs."

Mr. Bennett: When he was replying to the debate on the last group of new clauses, the Minister suggested that in that group and this we were tying the Government's hands to 80 per cent. of the expenditure. We did not push those new clauses to a vote because we accept that the Government may need flexibility. On the other hand, we feel strongly that some resources should be allocated in those directions.
In these two new clauses we are talking about 40 per cent. There is a strong case for earmarking money to try to relieve the poverty which stops many youngsters benefiting fully from the very expensive educational

provisions that we make. We proudly proclaim in this country that we introduced primary education in 1870 and that 10 or 12 years later we established free primary education. The textbooks which are published to tell the rest of the world about Britain all stress that we have a free education system. Perhaps we ought to say that it is free at the point of use. That is the basic system.
For most parents the idea of a free education system is nonsense. They know that regularly they are asked to pay for things which are essential if their children are to benefit fully from the education that is offered. We start with the nursery age group. As we have heard, large areas of the country are not covered by free nursery schools but by playgroups. Almost all the playgroups charge. They tend to be in the middle-class or better-off areas of towns. Where they exist across a whole town, we still find that many children are unable to benefit because there is a charge. When I talk to church organisations and those who run playgroups, I find that this is a major problem. They are conscious that children who would get most benefit either have to be subsidised by the other children who attend or are not able to get to the playgroups.
Right from the start finance can be a barrier. Even at primary school level it is amazing how parents are subjected to demands to contribute to their children's education or to the benefit that they get out of their education.
At this time of year many primary schools have a series of activities which relate to Christmas parties. They are often involved in crafts to make table decorations or to decorate the classroom for a Christmas party. It is surprising how many schools ask parents to contribute to such parties. Even some better schools whose head teacher is aware that asking for contributions may embarrass some parents will say, "We do not ask parents to contribute to the school Christmas party; we simply pay for it out of school funds." That seems to ignore the fact that such funds must be raised by asking parents to send in a small sum of money each week with their child or by having a series of fund-raising activities which, although voluntary, may make parents or children feel that they are obliged to contribute.
Most hon. Members, when thinking of their school days, look back with amusement and nostalgia at school photographs. We pick out various people who were in our class. Such photographs cost money and can be the cause of embarassment to parents when they are put under pressure by the school or their child to purchase them. If it is possible to justify a class photograph, it is difficult to justify a practice which is operated by many schools. They allow a commercial photographer into the school to take individual photographs of the pupils. They often send the photographs home with the children with a bill for £4 or £5. Although it is up to the children or the parents to decide whether to buy the photograph, parents are put under pressure to buy the photograph as the children say, "So-and-so is having his picture, can I have mine?"
Many schools want their pupils to wear uniform or distinctive clothing. That too puts pressure on parents to buy clothing which they cannot perhaps afford and may not be able to get from jumble sales and other sources of clothing for people on low incomes.
I should like to relate a story that I was told by a constituent who could not afford to buy a pair of football boots for her older son. Because he showed great skill kicking a football around while wearing pumps, the form


teacher who took games carefully ensured that he was loaned a pair of football boots when he reached the third and fourth years and played for the school team. The teacher did that because he knew that the boy's mother would be extremely embarrassed if she was asked to provide him with a pair of football boots. His younger brother, however, was not so good at football and the school could not find the same resourcefulness tactfully to find a pair of football boots for him.
It is not difficult to appreciate the school's problem. If it operates in a hard-up area of a town, it cannot find football boots for every child whose parents cannot afford them. The problem for the parents remains as, although their older boy might have been provided with a pair of boots, they must face up to whether they can afford the £8 or £9 necessary to buy a pair for the younger son.
Problems also arise in regard to bus fares for children who form a football team or a group going on a trip. Schools constantly ask the children or their parents to pay such modest sums. The sums are modest but they are cumulative. A parent who receives social security benefit or just unemployment benefit finds that such sums are a cause of great hardship. Many parents try hard to meet the school's financial demands as they do not want their children to suffer. Moreover, the children are wise enough to know the household's financial difficulties and they tend therefore not to ask their parents to cough up the necessary money.

Mr. Dunn: I am exercising my mind to understand what the hon. Gentleman is driving at. We believe that the education support grant should be used to stimulate activities which are put to good use in the wider generality of education. We have had a debate on Cockcroft and its mathematics. Bearing in mind the fact that there will be competition for places on the shopping list of activities which are to be supported, is the hon. Gentleman saying that he would rather that school photographs were subsidised than that the provisions of the Cockcroft report were included?

Mr. Bennett: I am not suggesting that the photographs should be subsidised. I am suggesting that there should be some experiment, such as new clause 7 would provide, to see how far parents' problems, when meeting the demands of schools, lead to alienation of parents and some pupils from school. We should also draw a line and say, "These things are essential and should therefore be paid for by the state so that we can genuinely say that we are providing free education." There are other things which schools should not be getting involved in. The problem is that we do not at the moment draw a line.
The number of children and parents who opt out and start failing to co-operate with the school and to take full advantage of what is offered is relatively small in primary schools. In secondary schools, however, the schools' demands to fork out money grow rapidly and there seems to be increasing alienation of some pupils and parents to the schools. We should examine whether the schools' demands to make so many financial contributions lead to a substantial number of children ceasing to get the full benefit.
At primary school level it is the exception for schools to demand a uniform but almost all secondary schools demand one. Many make modest demands —they ask for clothes that are easily available from such shops as

Marks and Spencer. Some schools take into account the costs involved and keep them low. Nevertheless, ever that modest cost does not always work to the child's advantage. A school in one of the poorest parts of Stockport has modest school uniform requirements, so the local authority makes a modest contribution to its costs. However, in the case of schools in more affluent suburbs, which feel able to demand a more elaborate uniform the local authority makes a more substantial contribution. If grants for school uniforms genuinely met their full cost, there would be few problems, but that is rare. Local authorities offer vouchers rather than cash so that parents are left feeling that they are receiving charity. They feel uneasy about that.
We should also consider the cost of travelling to school. In many cities, the distance involved is not great but, bearing in mind heavy traffic, parents want their 12 or 13-year-old children to travel by bus. That too can cause considerable financial problems. Because children might have to travel to school, their parents find that they incur costs for school meals. They are often dearer than those which could be provided at home. Parents who live on minimum incomes face real financial difficulties.
Schools are increasingly keen to raise funds because of local authority cuts that have been imposed by the Government. Fund raising often creates problems for low income parents. I refer to such things as tuck shops, which are out to make a profit for the school, and raffle tickets. An increasing number of schools say that they do not have enough books and that it would be nice if pupils bought their own. Many school libraries are smaller and so booksellers are encouraged to visit the school. Such factors place a financial burden on a few parents, which restricts their children's activities. Domestic science teaching in many secondary schools, especially in preparation for examinations, is attractive, as is the preparation for craft examinations, but some pupils who may benefit from such courses choose not to study those subjects because they know that the weekly demands for food for the domestic science course and equipment for the craft course will place a considerable burden on the family income. The result is that pupils opt for a different choice of subjects in the third or fourth year which will place a smaller demand on the family income.
7.30 pm
I appreciate that some schools are extremely good at trying to help low-income families to cope with the demands of school. Unfortunately, many schools do not cope adequately with the problem. When I visit schools regularly ask the head teacher for his opinion of the demands that his school places on parents to cough up cash. Unfortunately, few head teachers know the overall cost. As a teacher, I made such mistakes. A geography teacher is tempted to ask his pupils to bring 50p for a trip out of school. There may be good educational reasons for doing that, but it is easy to forget that what is a small sum of money to the teacher may well strain a family's budget.
Increasingly, the children feel that they cannot pass on the demands to their parents. Some kids always make the mistake of asking for money when their parents have none and cause them embarrassment. Other kids whose parents have the lowest incomes do not even ask. They do not take the notes home from school because they know that the demand for money will be out of the question.
The Government should experiment further to establish how far some children under-attain, under-achieve and under-benefit from the education system because of the poverty in which they live, and the fact that the schools ask them unrealistically to contribute to their supposedly free education.
If there is a major problem of the alienation of many children, caused by their parent's low income as they pass through their secondary schools, the final crunch comes when deciding whether to remain at school or to leave at 16. The Government must face the fact that we have a jumble of financial provisions for children in the 16-to-18 age group. The families of children who stay on at school continue to receive child benefit at £6·50 a week. If the family is on a low income, it may be eligible for family income supplement, and an increasingly smaller number of authorities provide educational maintenance allowances.
If the children leave school and obtain a place on a youth training scheme, which may or may not be as useful as remaining at school, they will earn £25 a week, which most people accept should be increased as it does not provide an adequate income. Should children not obtain a place on a youth training scheme but claim social security and then return to school or attend an educational establishment for fewer than 21 hours a week, they can qualify for £16·50 per week supplementary benefit if they are aged 16 to 17, and £21·45 a week when they are 18.
The income support provisions are in a jumble. If the Government provided adequate income support for all youngsters aged 16 to 18, the number of children staying on at school would increase and their education would benefit. It is also worth noting that the educational standards of children up to the age of 16 would also improve. Nothing is more demoralising to a youngster, when being encouraged to do well and to attempt O-level examinations, than to know that the rest of the class is likely to enter the sixth form or transfer to a sixth form college or a college of further education, but that the financial pressures at home will prevent him or her from obtaining a place. They suffer from increasing disillusion and do not benefit as much as they should up to the age of 16.
The Government must make further provisions. I argue strongly that they should provide a guaranteed income for youngsters aged between 16 and 18 who have no work. The position should be the same be they at school, in part-time education or on a youth training scheme. That suggestion may be pushing the Government too far and they can justifiably say that the resources are not available. But the Government cannot say that they are not prepared to experiment in at least one inner city or local authority area. They could examine the implications of giving grants to all 16 to 18-year-olds in the area, thereby removing some of the financial poverty and difficulties facing youngsters throughout their education. The Government could do much in this respect to improve education provision.
I hope that when the Minister replies he will make it clear that he expects all head teachers to know how much they ask their pupils to contribute. I hope that he insists that head teachers consider the ability of parents on low incomes and those on supplementary benefit to meet such requirements.
I hope that he will also consider carefully the support given by the Government to the assisted places scheme. It seems that Conservative Members are keen to help the low-income family to hit the jackpot by getting their children into an independent school under the assisted places scheme. I hope that the Government are equally enthusiastic in trying to ensure that the children who attend state schools also gain full benefit from the system, even if their parents are on a low income.
I hope that the Government will examine closely the relationship between poverty and the opportunity to benefit from the education system, and that they will strive to ensure that we have a free education system which does not penalise the children of low-income families.

Mr. Greenway: I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). As he referred to his background in teaching as a means of giving his argument respectability, I shall use my background in teaching to refute some of the hon. Gentleman's arguments. Although I often agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman says, I feel that he would, in some respects, take us down an undesirable path.
The hon. Gentleman's opinion that schools should not undertake fund-raising activities is undesirable and unhelpful, although I know that he means well. In my experience, fund-raising can be useful to a school as it brings together parents of all types. The children join in and help, and outside money comes in. If a school puts on a Christmas bazaar or a summer fete, it sets out to attract support from the entire district, and even people who do not have children at the school come to the events. The involvement of parents in such activities, even with the assistance of outsiders, is of enormous value.
I recently assisted at the Christmas fair put on by my eight-year-old son's primary school. My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) is aware that the school is good, and he has twice experienced the school's value with his own children, as have many other hon. Members who are pleased to use this church school in the state education system, as I have always been. A fortnight ago I helped my wife, who was in charge of the bookstall. The exercise was valuable. Two or three parents assisted on the stall at any one time, and we were all sensitive. If children could not afford to pay, I would give them the book that they wanted. If they could afford to pay only a little, I would not charge much. There was no awkwardness or discrimination. The activity was lively. Almost every parent was involved, including poor parents— some of them as poor as or poorer than Members of Parliament.
I used to hold similar views to those expressed by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish, but I changed my mind. Often facilities that are provided without any effort from the parents or children are less valued than the facilities that required a little struggle to acquire them. I do not argue with the hon. Gentleman's point that, in principle, education must be completely free. However, when parents get together and say, "Beyond the basic facilities of this school we should provide a little extra and we shall make a special effort to have a swimming pool installed or to provide an extra special library," those facilities often mean a great deal t? children, because their parents tell them not to abuse such facilities since they have sweated blood to provide them.

Mr. Radice: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but the problem is that in some areas parents cannot afford


to make such contributions. In parts of my constituency, and perhaps in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), there is no money for such facilities. As the HMI reports show, there are widening differences between areas and schools because parents in some areas can afford to contribute towards the facilities while others cannot.

Mr. Greenway: I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to my fundamental premise, which is that all facilities should be provided free of charge and without discrimination. But I repeat that fund-raising efforts are valuable. As the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish said, fares to sports matches can be paid out of the money raised. Schools could provide smart new football shirts for the school team, which would give tremendous pleasure to the children, who could have the latest style of shirt and could look like an England side in miniature. There would then he no discrimination or awkwardness. The money raised by such efforts could subsidise school shows by paying for the lighting. Tickets could be provided free to old age pensioners, and a proper community effort could be made. Old people get tremendous pleasure from mixing with children and seeing their shows.
Parental contributions to school funds cannot be obligatory, and never have been in my experience. Sensitive teachers have always been able to spot the child who cannot afford to bring money to the school, so the contribution is neither sought nor expected. Teachers are more sensitive than the hon. Gentleman gives them credit for.
7.45 pm
Schools make a profit from school photographs and, as you will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is a great pleasure for children to have photographs of themselves and their friends. Sometimes discounts of 20 per cent. or 25 per cent. can be obtained from the company that takes the school photograph, so there is a profit for the school funds.
We cannot always have all that we want. It is very sad for an adult to refuse a child something that he wants, and I find it far more difficult to say no to children than I do to myself and other adults. However, it must sometimes be said, and it is not always bad for children to learn that they cannot have everything, because that is how life will treat them, unless they are the favoured few.
I support what the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish said about uniform grants. There should be no difficulty for parents who need a uniform grant with which to equip their children for school. Local authorities must consider such grants carefully to ensure that they are sufficient to provide the minimum school uniform in the form of a blazer, shirt and tie. In my experience, sensitive headmasters always know which children receive uniform grants and ensure that, if there is some difficulty, the basic grant is topped up. School uniforms are of great value, because the children look and feel alike. I was interested to hear the hon. Gentleman make that point, because I thought that he did not approve of school uniforms.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I do not approve of expensive school uniforms and the hon. Gentleman should think carefully before saying that school uniform produces uniform appearance. With most secondary school pupils a uniform highlights the difference in parental income, because uniforms do not always wear well. The uniform does not have the effect that many people claim—it does not reduce distinctions among parental incomes.

Mr. Greenway: I agree that school uniforms should not be expensive, and most parents, whether they receive a grant towards it or not, will ensure that the uniform is not expensive, because children grow out of it quickly. It is a waste of money to buy a new uniform every two or three months. We must ensure that children do not forsake the official school uniform for a uniform encouraged by their peers, which can lead to their feeling inadequate when compared with other pupils. Girls especially will dress smartly for school party days, and may embarrass their peers. For those reasons, I support the wearing of a school uniform.
It is often the case that parents cannot afford to contribute towards facilities for their children, yet those children can go to the ice cream van or to the hot dog van and buy Coca Cola and crisps. I have never understood that. I would ban those vehicles, and say that, by law they should not be allowed within 100 or 200 yards of the school, because they have a disruptive effect upon the pupils and the school.

Mr. Sean Hughes: I have already referred, both on Second Reading and in Committee, to the educational deprivation of constituencies such as mine, and I have stressed many times the importance of educational ethos in such areas. Much of what I have heard from the Conservative Benches, both on this new clause and earlier ones, has been irrelevant to areas such as mine. I long to see the day when my constituency is populated by the ideal man of the middle ages, with a thirst for knowledge for its own sake. I applaud and value academic excellence. It is no less relevant to areas such as mine than it is to the more pleasant parts of the country. However, I am not blind to the realities, or to the pressure under which our young people live, which is enormous.
Young people under 16 are being enticed to leave school, but not because of the attraction of employment, because in areas such as mine there is 62 per cent. unemployment. They do not leave because of the attraction of excitement and action, because the society in which late teenagers in such areas move is one of boredom. They have a future of disillusionment, of lying in bed late in the morning, hanging around increasingly delinquent and decayed shopping centres in the afternoon and becoming objects of police suspicion in the evening. For them, the immediate attractions of the pittance that is doled out by the DHSS is enough to encourage pupils, aware of the family pressures that they are under, to leave school.
Conservative Members might argue that it is a better and richer alternative to stay on at school rather than face such a life. I agree, but it is a measure of the collapse of morale and the absence of educational ethos that it does not happen in areas such as mine. That is all the more reason why the Government should do something, no matter how small, to encourage young people to stay on at school after the age of 16, for example by making the proposed education maintenance allowance.
Far too often, when Conservative Members speak about the sixth form, they refer only to the traditional academic sixth form. In areas of real educational deprivation there are many who at the age of 16, lack basic education skills such as numeracy and literacy. Thousands leave school at 16 who are lost for ever to the pleasures of reading or the


importance of gaining those basic prerequisites for life in a so-called civilised society because they leave school unfulfilled.
Earlier this evening, we heard arguments in favour of the value of grammar school segregation. I am appalled by the fact that in the late 20th century hon. Members can honestly believe that there is an elite of 20 or 25 per cent. who deserve, or are entitled to, superior education. I am unconvinced of the argument in favour of the innate nature of intelligence. We have a duty at every stage of a young person's development and beyond to encourage him or her to develop his or her skills. One such stage is the age of 16.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he does not believe that some people are born cleverer and more intelligent than others?

Mr. Hughes: There are Conservative Members who have prominent forebears who are living examples of the fact that intelligence is not hereditary. I do not accept the idea that intelligence is something to which one is born.
It is one of the modern sins, crying to heaven for vengeance, that we do not encourage our teachers to capture the imagination of those pupils whose deprived environment mitigates against them ever making the most of their educational opportunities. That is why new clause 4, although a modest step, is at least a step in the right direction.

Mr. Mark Fisher: Clause 4 tackles one of the most difficult problems facing education. The division of people who do or do not stay on after the age of 16 marks one of the greatest divisions in our educational system. If hon. Members on both sides of the House believe that education after 16 is desirable for some children, it must be desirable for all children. Our first priority in secondary education should be to extend the benefits of education after the age of 16 to all children. This clause begins to tackle that problem.
This is a particular problem in cities such as my own, Stoke-on-Trent, where there are sixth form colleges. That means that there is inevitably a natural break at 16, and there is a temptation to leave when friendships, routines and familiarity are broken up. Other cities and other education authorities that have that problem will know the difficulty of persuading students to stay on in a sixth form college.
The problem is a wider one than that of cities such as my own, for it is a national one. The most up-to-date education statistics are those for 1981 and 1982, and they make horrific reading. At 15, we have 862,000 children in education, at 16 the figure drops to 261,000 and at 17 to 147,000. That is a drop from 91·7 per cent. of all 15-year-old children at school, to 27·2 per cent. of all 16-year-olds, which is a disastrous drop.
In the past Governments of both political parties have not addressed or tackled this problem. If clause 4 can even begin to do so, to tackle a crying need, it could make a valuable contribution. A drop from 91·7 per cent. to 27·2 per cent., to 15 per cent. at the age of 17, shows that Governments of both political complexions have failed children in not providing the continuity and quality of education that it is our duty, as the governing body of the country, to provide.
That must be a significant factor in the reasons why only 7·5 per cent. of any particular age group stay on to any form of higher education, and why even fewer are in university education. It is an educational scandal that so few students progress to develop all their ability, which they undoubtedly have, through further and university education. Not only are students who are deprived of the opportunity and the encouragement to do that weaker as individuals, but we as a country are weaker. Governments of both political complexions have in their time called out for greater skills, but there has been an impoverishment of the provision for making skills in higher education and university. The roots of that problem must go back to the fact that we cannot hold on to our students after the age of 16.
Most right hon. and hon. Members now in the Chamber have been in education and have been teachers. That is perhaps a sad comment on the House, but it is none the less fact. There may be particular reasons why we do not attract students to higher education. There may be things that we can do, and new clause 6 would have a part to play in making a more relevant, flexible and specific curriculum that relates to life, particularly a non-exam based curriculum.
8 pm
However, the real problem is not in the curriculum. It is the more basic problem, the primary problem, before one reaches the more sophisticated problem of drawing up a sixth form curriculum, of attracting students to stay on. The fundamental problem is: can we persuade parents to encourage their children to stay on? As unemployment increases and households are in desperate need of cash, the root of the problem is often money. Understandably, when parents are unemployed, they need another person bringing in an income, however small. The new clause provides at least an opportunity for some educational maintenance awards, which have been recognised during the past 10 years as being an essential prerequisite of serious continuity in education.
Most of the items specified in new clause 7 as extra payments and for research into the use and educational benefit of additional expenditure, on top of the normal curriculum, are to some extent non-educational. I was interested to see that theatre tickets are included in the list. The theatre is an important way in which the lives of students can be enriched. I speak as a former teacher, and I am horrified to discover how many people leave school without ever having visited the theatre or having an opportunity to discover it as a method of communication of interest to them. Much progress could be made here.
However, the matter does not stop there. If the chance to go to the theatre is seen as an important part of the education of every child, the chance to have contacts with all the arts is equally important. During the past five or six years, important steps have been made by regional arts associations, the Arts Council of Great Britain, and by one or two organisations such as W. H. Smith and Son Ltd. and the Gulbenkian foundation, to establish writers in school schemes throughout the country, writers' bursaries, and artists in school schemes. I have done much research into the matter. Most people who are involved in education, certainly most teachers in the arts, educational advisers and people in regional arts associations and the Arts Council, recognise that this is an important area for future development. Students should be able to talk to


artists and have an opportunity to discover what it is that an artist, a dancer, a painter, a sculptor or a poet is trying to communicate to and about their society. If that is considered an important part of education it involves additional money without which most education authorities cannot integrate it into the normal curriculum. The money usually comes, at least in part, from the school fund, and parents are often reluctant, or unable to meet extra demands on their resources.
I regret that the new clause proposes only
at least 10 per cent. of the expenditure".
That 10 per cent. could be valuably spent as a form of research to establish a need for children of all ages. If the Government accept the new clause, I hope that the 10 per cent. will concentrate on the educational potential that is inherent in paragraph (i). While I accept that school clothing and photographs are valuable, I believe that an educational pearl is buried in the oyster of paragraph (i) which could greatly benefit children throughout the country and set standards which could be followed by all education authorities.
I welcome both the new clauses, and I hope that the Government will see the benefit, good sense and genuine concern that they express for the quality of education and the continuing opportunity that they contain for all children to develop their full potential.

Mr. Dunn: We have had a most useful debate. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) said that many young persons were being enticed away from school. However, he must know that the trend in recent years has been one of historical increases in staying on at 16. For example, in 1978–79, the proportion of 16-yearold young persons staying on was about 41 per cent. In 1982–83, the proportion had increased to nearly 49 per cent. So I gently correct the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: That may be the national figure, but I think the Minister will find that in many of the deprived areas the staying on rate has not increased as dramatically as it has in the rest of the country.

Mr. Dunn: I take that point. I was quoting a global figure. but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would accept that there has been an increase even in the deprived areas.

Mr. Fisher: Will the Minister repeat that figure?

Mr. Dunn: It was 41·4 per cent. in 1978–79, and an increase in 1982–83 to nearly 49 per cent.

Mr. Fisher: What is the source of the Minister's statistics? The statistics that I quoted were from the 1983 edition of the education statistics for the United Kingdom and they show a drop to 27 per cent. in any age group staying on after 16, with a figure of only 15 per cent. for 17-year-olds. There seems to be a wide discrepancy between my figures and the Minister's figures. It would help to know where the Minister's figures come from.

Mr. Dunn: My figures come from the Department of Education and Science's statistics section. Of course, I shall undertake to check the figures, and I shall write to the hon. Member to clarify the position. I should not want to be at odds with him after he made such an excellent speech.

Mr. Radice: Perhaps I might insert a figure. I have here the figure from the 1982 education statistics,

paragraph 2.10. The participation rate of those over school leaving age today is 22 per cent. So I do not understand the Minister's figures.

Mr. Dunn: My figures include children who are going on to non-advanced further education. That might widen the figures. However, so that there may be no dispute between us, I undertake to clarify the situation for the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) and I shall send copies of this correspondence to the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice).
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) asked about school uniforms. I think that there was cross-party harmony about the need for greater action. I remind my hon. Friend and other hon. Members that the LEA has discretion to provide grants for school clothing and it has the power to provide clothing. It is for that authority to decide its policies, and it is not open to the Secretary of State or to me to intervene or impose requirements. It is for the LEA and governors to decide whether schools should require pupils to wear some form of uniform. I welcome the mixed support of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish on that matter. Of course, there is more than one view on whether that is desirable. My own experience from visiting schools, especially in inner city areas where there are particular family resources problems, shows that most schools go out of their way to have a cheaper and more serviceable uniform for children in deprived areas. That is something which we all welcome.
The effect of new clause 4 would be to require at least 30 per cent. of education support grants in the first three years to be used to support local education authorities' expenditure on education maintenance awards. Almost all local education authorities pay education maintenance awards. I admit that not many students qualify and that the amounts paid may not be large. However, there are perhaps only a handful of authorities that do not pay any awards.
The effect of new clause 7 would be that a further 10 per cent. would be used to conduct research into the relationship between educational achievement and parental contributions of various sorts and the payment of grants to cover such costs.
The law gives local education authorities complete discretion whether to pay education maintenance awards and equal discretion over the basis on which to establish the entitlement and value of such awards. The relationship that exists between local education authorities and the Government is a partnership. I do not wish to give a commitment to intervene in an area of discretion that naturally devolves upon the local education authority. It is for an authority to determine its policy in the light of its view of local needs and of immediate priorities.
The House will know that the aggregate expenditure of local authorities in recent years has risen from about £3·3 million in 1979–80 to about £6·6 million in 1981–82. Local education authorities also have powers to pay discretionary grants to further education students. In 1981–82 the total of all these payments, including education maintenance awards, was about £28 million. However, some payments were made for travel and books and not all of the £28 million was expended necessarily on those in the 16 to 19-year age group.
If authorities can contain their costs, the provision in the 1984£85 rate support grant settlement for discretionary


awards should allow the majority of authorities to maintain the number of discretionary awards at the 1981–82 level. As some courses have been designated for mandatory awards since 1981–82, there should be some scope for authorities to increase the number of awards for other courses.
I do not believe that education support grants have a role to play in pupil and student support. Expenditure support grants are not intended to provide general financial support for any part of a local education authority's expenditure. As the House knows, that is the purpose of the block grant. Expenditure in support of which ESGs can be paid is deliberately limited to a small proportion of total local authority expenditure. The purpose of the grants is to encourage the redeployment of expenditure at the margin in areas of especial importance. The work that is supported by the grants is likely to be concerned with new developments—for example, financing pilot projects for records of achievement—and not in support of general expenditure. For these reasons, I do not regard education maintenance allowances as an appropriate area for education support grants.
The Government cannot accept new clause 7. However, I congratulate the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish on his capable ingenuity in tabling and introducing the clause. He knows and I know that it has nothing to do with the purpose of the Bill. However, as it has been debated I shall in all courtesy say something about the contributions that are made by parents to "schools or others". The position in law is clear. Local education authorities have a duty under section 7 of the Education Act 1944 to secure efficient education for the population in their areas. Under section 8 of the same Act they have a duty to provide schools which are
Sufficient in number, character and equipment to afford for all pupils opportunities for education offering such variety of instruction and training as may be desirable in view of their different ages, abilities and aptitudes".
8.15 pm
Section 61 requires that
No fees shall be charged … in respect of the education provided
in any maintained school. It follows that schools may not lawfully charge for the education that is provided. It does not follow that parents are prevented from contributing voluntarily towards the total cost of everything that is involved in running a school, or towards specific items within that cost.
The Government and Conservative Members have made it clear on many occasions that we see no reason why parents should not make such contributions provided always that they are genuinely voluntary. That means that schools should make it clear that contributions are wholly voluntary when they are invited to be made towards the cost of the education provided, and that children whose parents are unable or unwilling to make them will not be penalised. There is nothing new in that. Parents and parent-teacher associations have played an invaluable role form any years in making help available to schools throughout the country in a wide variety of ways, and all credit to them for so doing.
I recognise the concern that is reflected in Her Majesty's inspectorate's reports on the effect of local authority expenditure policies on the education service,

but some schools are able in the nature of things to attract much higher revenue than others from parents and to do so more widely from the local community. The duty of local education authorities is to ensure that efficient education is provided and that schools, among other things, are sufficiently equipped. That duty extends to all schools that an authority maintains.
Local education authorities must be prepared to take the necessary action to ensure that their legal duties are met. The realities, however, have little if anything to do with the clause, which is only a device to raise some of the issues to which I have referred. I recommend to the House that the new clauses be rejected.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I am disappointed that the Minister's response to the new clauses has been so unenthusiastic. The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) described what seemed to be a fairly typical situation in a middle-class neighbourhood. He talked about considerable parental support for a school and the ability of those in the neighbourhood to raise substantial extra sums to subsidise the school and to provide items which five or six years earlier would have been provided by the state in any event.
The hon. Member for Ealing, North said that it is easy in an area of the sort which he described for sensitive parents or teachers to deal with the few children with parents on low incomes to ensure that they do not feel too deprived. He said also that it is important that youngsters should learn that they cannot have everything. I accept that, but it is important that youngsters should not be denied their basic education because parents cannot make financial contributions.

Mr. Greenway: I was not describing a middle-class area. I was describing a school which draws children from the poorest homes, the not so poor and the middle class. However, there is by no means a majority of middle-class children in that school.

Mr. Bennett: I accept the hon. Gentleman's assurance that he was not describing what is basically a middle-class area. I suggest, however, that he examines some of the areas in which 25 to 30 per cent. of parents are unemployed and where people have been out of work in large numbers for 12 months or more. In those areas it is extremely difficult for schools to raise money by voluntary effort. When they raise money, the raise only small sums compared with some schools in richer areas. The hon. Member for Ealing, North said that children must learn that their parents cannot afford everything. However, I am convinced that in many schools children are denied basic education because their parents cannot contribute to it. That is a major problem, which must be examined.
I am amazed at the amount of correspondence that follows every subject that I raise. I receive more correspondence from people pointing out to me the hardships that they feel they suffer because of the charges imposed on parents by schools—even though they are voluntary—than on many other issues that I raise. I am convinced that those charges cause parents considerable difficulty. I am sure that my hon. Friends the Members for Knowsley, South (Mr. Hughes) and for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) know of many parents in their areas who cannot afford the demands that are made.
The Manpower Services Commission has considerably underspent on the amount of money that it is putting into


youth training. The Department of Education and Science ought to bid for that money not just for experiments, as we suggest in the new clause, but for educational maintenance grants to all pupils to ensure that those children who could benefit from staying on at school or from going on to further education do so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central referred to theatre tickets. I am amazed at the number of children who are expected to do CSE and O-level English Literature and to study the text of plays but who have never had an opportunity to see those plays performed on the stage. Rarely does a school manage to arrange for all the pupils who are studying those texts to visit the theatre. Almost all schools must ask parents to contribute to the cost of the theatre tickets and often the cost of the coach to take the children to the theatre. Inevitably, some children do not go because of the cost.
The Under-Secretary accurately described the position of educational maintenance awards. However, few local authorities have the money to make them available either via a means test, or at a level that enables many children to benefit from them, and that certainly does not do much to encourage take-up of those awards.
Hon. Members who have listened to the debate and those who read it will feel that the Government have not addressed themselves to the fact that poverty is increasing and that, therefore, a few children do not receive the full benefit from our education system. We ought to be devising experiments and methods of maintenance support that will ensure that all children benefit from our education system. The system is expensive, but it is a waste of resources to deny a small number of children the financial support that they need to take full advantage of the education system. I hope that the House will support the new clause as a sign that it believes that the Government ought to be doing much more to address themselves to the problem of poverty in education.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 109, Noes 199.

Division No. 90]
[8.23 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Duffy, A. E. P.


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Eastham, Ken


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Ellis, Raymond


Beith, A. J.
Evans, Ioan (Cynon Valley)


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Blair, Anthony
Ewing, Harry


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Faulds, Andrew


Boyes, Roland
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Fisher, Mark


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Flannery, Martin


Bruce, Malcolm
Forrester, John


Caborn, Richard
Freud, Clement


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Godman, Dr Norman


Canavan, Dennis
Golding, John


Cartwright, John
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Clarke, Thomas
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Clay, Robert
Hardy, Peter


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Haynes, Frank


Craigen, J.M.
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Home Robertson, John


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Dewar, Donald
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Dormand, Jack
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Douglas, Dick
Kirkwood, Archibald


Dubs, Alfred
Lambie, David





Lamond, James
Randall, Stuart


Leighton, Ronald
Redmond, M.


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Richardson, Ms Jo


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


McGuire, Michael
Rogers, Allan


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Rooker, J. W.


Madden, Max
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Marek, Dr John
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Martin, Michael
Rowlands, Ted


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Maxton, John
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Maynard, Miss Joan
Skinner, Dennis


Meadowcroft, Michael
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Michie, William
Snape, Peter


Mikardo, Ian
Soley, Clive


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Spearing, Nigel


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Stott, Roger


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Nellist, David
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


O'Neill, Martin
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wareing, Robert


Park, George
Winnick, David


Penhaligon, David



Pike, Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Mr. Don Dixon and Mr. John McWilliam.


Prescott, John



Radice, Giles





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Durant, Tony


Amess, David
Dykes, Hugh


Ashby, David
Evennett, David


Aspinwall, Jack
Eyre, Reginald


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Fallon, Michael


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Favell, Anthony


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Baldry, Anthony
Fookes, Miss Janet


Batiste, Spencer
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Franks, Cecil


Bellingham, Henry
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Benyon, William
Freeman, Roger


Best, Keith
Gale, Roger


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Galley, Roy


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Body, Richard
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Goodlad, Alastair


Bottomley, Peter
Gower, Sir Raymond


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Greenway, Harry


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Gregory, Conal


Braine, Sir Bernard
Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Bright, Graham
Ground, Patrick


Brinton, Tim
Grylls, Michael


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Bruinvels, Peter
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Budgen, Nick
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bulmer, Esmond
Hannam, John


Burt, Alistair
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Butterfill, John
Harvey, Robert


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Carttiss, Michael
Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hawksley, Warren


Chope, Christopher
Hayes, J.


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Hayhoe, Barney


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hayward, Robert


Clegg, Sir Walter
Henderson, Barry


Cockeram, Eric
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Colvin, Michael
Hirst, Michael


Conway, Derek
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Cope, John
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Cormack, Patrick
Holt, Richard


Couchman, James
Hooson, Tom


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hordern, Peter


Dicks, T.
Howard, Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Dunn, Robert
Hunt, David (Wirral)






Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Onslow, Cranley


Hunter, Andrew
Oppenheim, Philip


Jessel, Toby
Osborn, Sir John


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Ottaway, Richard


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Pawsey, James


Key, Robert
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Pollock, Alexander


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Porter, Barry


Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)
Powell, William (Corby)


Knowles, Michael
Powley, John


Knox, David
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Lang, Ian
Proctor, K. Harvey


Lawler, Geoffrey
Raffan, Keith


Lawrence, Ivan
Rathbone, Tim


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Rhodes James, Robert


Lester, Jim
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Lightbown, David
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Lilley, Peter
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Sims, Roger


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Lord, Michael
Spence, John


McCrindle, Robert
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Macfarlane, Neil
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Stradling Thomas, J.


McQuarrie, Albert
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Madel, David
Temple-Morris, Peter


Malins, Humfrey
Terlezki, Stefan


Malone, Gerald
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Maples, John
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Marland, Paul
Thome, Neil (Ilford S)


Marlow, Antony
Tracey, Richard


Mates, Michael
Trippier, David


Maude, Francis
Twinn, Dr Ian


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Waller, Gary


Mellor, David
Ward, John


Merchant, Piers
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Wheeler, John


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Whitney, Raymond


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Wilkinson, John


Moore, John
Wood, Timothy


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Yeo, Tim


Moynihan, Hon C.
Younger, Rt Hon George


Murphy, Christopher



Neale, Gerrard
Tellers for the Noes:


Needham, Richard
Mr. John Major and Mr. Michael Neubert.


Nicholls, Patrick



Norris, Steven

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 8

RATE SUPPORT GRANTS

'Expenditure incurred by local authorities in providing education support grants shall be disregarded for the purposes of calculating rate support grants.'.—[Mr. Freud]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Freud: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It is, of course, common knowledge that 60 per cent. or more of the average county council budget is taken up in educational expenditure. We, who believe in regional excellence and in a local input of character and quality, realise that the average county council commits some 90 per cent. of its budget, if not more, to salaries, building maintenance, heating and lighting and other essential expenditure, without which it would be unable to function. The Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary talk about minimal expenditure, 0·5 per cent. and £1 in £200. It is

true that in global terms the sum is no more than £1 in £200, but I would suggest that 0·5 per cent. of what is left over from the available expenditure after a county council's essential expenditure is quite a substantial amount.
The point of my clause is simply to say that we do not mind—we have always maintained this—the principle of the Bill but that we object to the source of money—to the fact that it is to be financed by money that has already been allocated to local education authorities and which is now being clawed back in order that the Minister might have a centrist input into his expenditure. My clause seeks to exempt the local education authority contribution from the rate support grant equation in order that the 30 per cent. or more put in by the local authority will not count towards its disqualification of target and therefore its coming into penalty.
I believe that this is a sane new clause and I would have hoped that by now the Secretary of State, who has gone to some pressing appointment, or, in his absence, the Under-Secretary of State would have shown support, pleasure, agreement and, perhaps, would have jumped up and said, "Why did we not think of this?" and, "What a good idea," as it would do the Government no great harm. It would cost little other than the clawback which the Government receive by what they call the reckless expenditure of local authorities. In fact, it is no more than good housekeeping or the engagement of a few extra teachers, some more home helps or those things for which hon. Members on both sides of the House care. I am becoming bored with the contention that only one political party cares about people.
The Government are trying to have their cake and eat it. They are saying to local authorities, "Here is your rate support grant and if you do not abide by what we feel are the rules, we will fine you and the fines are heavy." Many local authorities have had to show considerable courage, as did my own shire county of Cambridgeshire, in going into penalty because they felt that their people deserved it. I should like at this point to congratulate the treasurer of Cambridgeshire county council who today received an award for presenting the best set of accounts of any local authority.
There is no good reason why local authorities should not treat the Government as the Government treat local authorities. There is no good reason why the Government should not be kept to their targets. If they do not keep to their targets they should go into penalty and give a little extra money to the local authorities.

Mr. Pawsey: A novel suggestion.

Mr. Freud: It is a suggestion that deserves to be aired and discussed in the House.
On page ix of the Appropriation Accounts 1982–83 we are told:
The Account shows that while there was a surplus of gross Estimate over expenditure
the realised amount
fell short of the Estimate of £10,216,000 by £1,125,626".
If the local authority did that, it would never live again. It would go into whatever nasty form of receivership could be thought of. Volume 4, classes IV and V of the Appropriation Accounts, 1983–84, shows:
Excesses totalling £102,043,615 on six subheads were partly offset by savings of £35,411,765".


That is approximately £67 million out of budget. Volume I, class I of the Appropriation Accounts 1983–84 shows expenditure of £1,240,767
in excess of the gross Estimate".
The Government have kept their word as to expenditure in hardly any appropriation account.
When local authorities incur penalties because they are looking after their local people, the Government are too harsh. With this on the Bill, it would be right for the Government to look again and decide that the contribution towards grant made by the local authorities will not count with regard to the rate support grant and penalties.

Mr. Radice: I support the new clause because its effect is to make education support grants new money. In principle, we are not against the Bill, as the Minister often said, and he rightly quoted my speech on Second Reading. However, we are against the idea of the Government spending local authorities' money. That is what the Bill is all about. I know that the Minister does not like that formulation, but it is true. As the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) rightly said, penalties might be incurred by that spending.
We had much innocent amusement in Committee, as the Minister will recall, in reading out the supplementary report on authorities in penalty. I shall not do that again because I do not like to embarrass the Minister, particularly by saying what is happening in Kent. The fact is that Kent has an overspend of £8·6 million and it is in a £3 million penalty area.

Mr. Freud: But the hon. Gentleman will not say that.

Mr. Radice: Of course I shall not say that. I do not like to embarrass the Minister at this late stage.
It is interesting how the Opposition have been the champions of local authorities against the centralisers, even a reluctant centraliser such as the Secretary of State. We have been the champion of not just the local authorities but the shires. Throughout Second Reading, Committee and Report it has been interesting that there has been silence from hon. Members meant to be representing the shires.

Mr. Madel: But not from me.

Mr. Radice: That is true. I shall forgive the hon. Gentleman, who is the only person who spoke on behalf of his county. He should be congratulated by the House. The silence from Conservatives who represent the shires has been extraordinary. I hope that it will be noted by their electorate and by the councillors, the chief of whom I understand has been taken aside by the Prime Minister to be read a lecture on the fact that councillors must be obedient and loyal to the Conservative party and the Government and support their legislation, even if it takes away local authorities' freedom.
In Committee the Minister did not accept our amendments on the same lines as the new clause. Even if the Minister will not accept the new clause, I should like to hear him tell local authorities where they are to make savings. If it is a redeployment, as the Secretary of State said, what are they to do? Will they have to sack more teachers and have fewer books and less equipment? What will they do about building repairs?

Mr. Archie Hamilton: It is for the local authorities to decide.

Mr. Radice: I have heard before that it is for the local authorities to decide, but it is also a matter of arithmetic. If the money is not available. they have to cut somewhere. If they are to spend money in the way that the Secretary of State wants, they will have to cut elsewhere. That is the problem that the Minister and the Government have not faced. The Minister also believes that school meals and milk should be cut.
It is for those reasons that we in the Labour party will support the Liberal party's new clause.

Mr. Dunn: I thank the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) for expressing concern for the county of Kent. If he wishes to make profit out of the alleged problems of the Kent authority, I must point out that there are 16 seats in the Kent county council area and at the election the Labour party managed only to come second in three. In my constituency, the Labour party's share of the vote fell to 26·8 per cent.—the lowest ever recorded in what was traditionally regarded as a Labour party seat. However, that is not relevant to this discussion.

Mr. Radice: In Committee, the hon. Gentleman was kind enough to invite me to visit Kent and see how things are managed there. I wonder whether he has yet managed to swing the chairman of the LEA and arrange the invitation? I should be delighted to accept it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Order. We are moving some way from the new clause.

Mr. Dunn: I was about to reply in a positive manner to the hon. Gentleman's reminder, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I shall not do so now.
The intention of new clause 8 is to promote discussion in the House on a subject about whic0h there was extensive related debate in Committee.
The new clause is technically defective. The local authorities do not provide education support grants. There has been an on-going debate—if I may use jargon—about the judgment on that question, but I understood from the wording of the new clause that the hon. Members who tabled it were concerned about the question whether expenditure supported by education support grants would count against expenditure targets. I see that the lion. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East agrees with my interpretation.
That question was considered in Committee at some length and an amendment similar to the new clause was rejected. I shall therefore limit myself to a few brief remarks. First, it is not intended that education support grants should be introduced until 1985–86. No decision has yet been taken about expenditure targets in that year. Whether there are expenditure targets in 1985–86 will depend partly upon local authority budgets in 1984–85., and their response to the targets for that year. If targets were set for 1985–86, the Government would consider carefully all representations that might be made by local authorities about the construction of targets, including any representations about the treatment of expenditure supported by education support grant. Indeed, the law requires us to do so.
The question will not be overlooked. If the local authorities are concerned and wish to raise it, it will be carefully considered.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: rose——

Mr. Dunn: I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East. I was not persuaded by his argument that net expenditure by authorities on projects supported by ESGs should be disregarded when targets are calculated. However, his speech was thoughtful and I shall consider it again and derive from it what I can.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The Minister is telling us what the Government plan to do about the rate support grant in the year in question. Can he tell us the timetable within which the local authorities will have to operate? I understand that the first year to which the provisions will apply is 1984–85, but people will have to make bids the year before. They will need to know what the financial arrangements are to be when they make their bids, rather than when the money is to be spent. Will the local authorities know before they make the bids what the financial arrangements are to be?

Mr. Dunn: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we went into this matter at some length in Committee. I shall repeat it for the benefit of the House. It is intended that the expenditure will be incurred in the year 1985–86. As far as I know, all local authorities start their budget exercise in the November of the previous year. It is expected that bids for expenditure to support a local authority activity will be made in about May or June. We intend to use the summer to evaluate those bids and to let the authority know before the budget-making round commences and before they decide where the money will come from for their possible 50 per cent. of the total expenditure.

Mr. Fisher: With the timetable that the Minister has just given, he is saying that local authorities will have to make their bids before the target is set; therefore, the authorities are bidding blind. They will not have the first idea whether there are expenditure targets and whether they are committing their ratepayers to expenditure which would put them beyond target. In a county such as Staffordshire, where I am a councillor—we are already in penalty—there is no way in which we could act responsibly to our ratepayers and, although we would want to, apply for the schemes covered by the Bill. Can the Minister encourage us to do so before we know the targets? Is the Minister speaking solely on behalf of his Department, or have his statements been cleared with the Department of the Environment, and has the Secretary of State for the Environment sanctioned what he is saying—that genuine consideration will be given to what the Minister is effectively saying will be exemptions?

Mr. Dunn: The hon. Gentleman must accept that in the first year we want to evaluate fully all local authority bids. They need to know reasonably early whether the bid has been successful. We intend to use the summer in any year to evaluate the bids to see which activity can be supported by a particular local authority. The authority will be told in time for it to establish from where the money will come for its contribution towards the total expenditure.
There is no other way in which we can get round the matter. We must accept that we are talking about activities to be pursued by local authorities. It is for them to decide which activity they wish to pursue. I imagine that some will be quite small, some may be quite large and some may be done in partnership depending upon the discussions with the local authority associations.

Mr. A. J. Beith: When will the local authorities know whether they are to be targets for the particular year?

Mr. Dunn: I cannot embark upon that matter. It depends upon their responses to targets and budgets in the preceding years.

Mr. Freud: I must press the Minister on this. I realise that he has a difficult task, but does he accept that local authorities cannot bid reasponsibly unless they know whether their bid will carry them into penalty? This clause simply seeks to ask whether the bid will be exempted, because it can be made if there is an exemption. Unless the local authorities know that, the bid cannot be made within the timetable given by the Minister.

Mr. Dunn: We are acting in response to the local authorities associations. They have asked whether decisions about bids will be made known to local authorities before they start their budget manouvres. We are responding to that request in the way that I have explained.
On the question of targets, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) must learn patience. The Government give guidance about targets in July each year. Whether we have targets for 1985–86 remains to be seen, as I said to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith).

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The Secretary of State is saying to a local authority that a bid is prepared with two unknowns: first, whether the Government will accept it, and, secondly, whether they will be able to afford to carry it out. The Government are asking local authorities carefully to prepare bids to allocate resources and to make out a case for some of this money with those two unknowns. Surely the Government ought at least to reduce the unknown on whether they can afford by it by giving the local authority a clear undertaking that it will not be from local authority money and it will not incur penalties.

Mr. Dunn: I have some more remarks to make on penalties. We have given an undertaking that my Department feels it has a duty to inform the local authorities as early as possible. As time goes on, as the mechanism becomes more sophisticated and easier to work, we shall try to bring forward the information as early as possible.
The normal practice for specific and supplementary grants is that expenditure funded by grant is not counted against an authority's target, but the balance is so counted as part of the authority's total net expenditure on all its services; in other words, local authorities are expected to accommodate their own expenditure on grant-aided activities within their targets. In the case of education support grant, this would mean that 30 per cent. or whatever of approved expenditure that is not covered by the grant would count against an authority's target.
The total of targets is derived from the Government's plans for local authority expenditure and those plans reflect the Government's policies and priorities. In arriving at their expenditure plans for education for future years, the Government will be taking a wide range of factors into account, including the need for expenditure in different areas within the education service, including those areas in which activities might be supported by ESGs as well as the scope for economies and the general need


for continuing restraint in the level of public expenditure. As ESGs are concerned with encouraging a limited redeployment of expenditure, it seems perfectly reasonable to me that local authorities' expenditure on grant-aided activities should be counted against their targets.
I therefore advise the House to reject the new clause.

Mr. Freud: It seems to me, and I am sure it seems to all hon. Members, that the new clause is a mess. If the Minister will agree to look at the new clause again, I shall not press it to a vote. I am glad that the Minister will look at it again because if he decides there is merit, perhaps not in the exact formation of the amendment but in the thought behind it——

Mr. Dunn: The hon. Member is being very helpful. I do not want to mislead him by saying I can promise or guarantee that there will be fundamental changes. The substance remains the same. I said that I shall look at his remarks and see what I can derive from them. I must not give any undertaking beyond that. If the hon. Member wishes to press the matter to a Division, that is for him to decide.

Mr. Freud: I accept the Minister's statement, perhaps with more grace than he made it.
It is wrong — and I am glad that the Secretary of State is present to hear this — to take pride in an amelioration of the pupil-teacher ratio when so much of the amelioration depends on the penalties that are invoked by what Opposition Members would call responsible but what the Minister would call reckless local authorities.

Question put and negatived.

9 pm

Mr. Dunn: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
We have had an interesting debate, in which a number of items have been discussed and I feel that I should place on record a factual analysis of the Bill, partly for history and partly for the convenience of hon. Members who have not followed our proceedings with the same interest as those of us who were members of the Committee. On a personal note, I enjoyed my first Committee, as I hope the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) did. It was a happy Committee, despite a lovers' tiff towards the end.
The Bill is in two parts. Part I would empower the Secretary of State to pay grants to local education authorities in England and Wales. The purposes to which the grants were to be put would be set out in regulations. subject to affirmative resolution in this House and in another place. The Bill places an upper limit on the expenditure which might be approved for grant purposes; the limit is 0·5 per cent. of local authorities' total expenditure on education. This reflects the intention of the Bill, to influence expenditure at the margin.
The Bill also requires the holder of the Secretary of State's office to consult the appropriate local authority associations about regulations to be made under the Bill. My right hon. Friend has recently written to the chairmen of the education committees of the AMA and ACC about possible activities that might be supported by ESGs in 1985–86. These are the possible areas for grant support which he described to the House on Second Reading.
Part I of the Bill will leave unchanged the broad relationship between central and local government. It will provide the Secretary of State with the means to encourage

local authorities to redeploy their expenditure at the margin in the light of national priorities. But the final decisions on expenditure will remain with the local authorities.
Local authorities over the years have pioneered many imaginative developments in the education service. Education support grants will provide a means to encourage the development and dissemination throughout the education service of new initiatives in responding to changing needs and circumstances. They will facilitate the introduction of recommendations such as those by the Cockcroft committee, which have been widely welcomed in this House. The Bill gives effect to the recommendation of the Select Committee on Education in the last Parliament that
the DES should have the ability … to fund direct such new developments on a temporary basis as may seem to it be desirable".
Part II is a technical measures which ensures that mandatory awards will continue to be available for students on courses validated by the Business Education Council and the Technician Education Council, which have recently merged. The Bill amends the law regarding awards to reflect that merger.

Mr. Radice: This is not a major Bill, but I suspect that it will prove to be significant not so much for what it does or will do but for what it reveals about this Government's and this Secretary of State's state of mind.
The Minister said that the Government were operating at the margin. That is so, but they are operating at the margin in a way that takes away local authority freedom. That is because the Government are not putting in additional money but are taking away money that local authorities thought they should be spending for their own purposes, and they are doing it at a time of great financial stringency, as successive HMI reports have shown.
That is happening at a time when local authorities—Tory as well as Labour—are deeply concerned about the Government's encroachment on their autonomy. We have just discussed targets, penalty areas and so on. We have before us the possibility of a rate-capping Bill and the abolition of the metropolitan counties. It is not surprising that local authorities are concerned about the whole question of local autonomy, and they see this measure, rightly in my view, as a further threat to their freedom and autonomy.
When we consider the Government's purposes, it is clear that those purposes have changed since the consultative document. It is significant that three out of five of the original reasons why it was said that we needed education support grants have been withdrawn, with other reasons having come forward.
If the Government are uncertain, it is not surprising that we are uncertain about whether the Secretary of State knows where he is going with education support grants.
Of course, the Bill will go through. It will get its Third Reading. Therefore it is right to say a few words about the means. I hope the Secretary of State will accept it when I say that consultation should be real and not a shadow boxing exercise and that he will listen to what the local authorities have to say about how the money should be spent. As I say, if he is uncertain in his own mind about the purposes for which the Bill will be used, he must ask the local authorities.
The second point is the timetable for the bids. We have revealed both in Committee and just now considerable obscurity on the part of the Government about the timetable. It is only fair to local authorities, if they have to bid for the money, that they should know about the timetable which is to be used.
The third issue is administration. There must be a proper check on all the pilot schemes. I hope the Secretary of State is certain that he has proper administrative mechanisms within his Department to check the pilot schemes. If not, the country will not get the proper benefit from them. Therefore, I hope he is considering that carefully.
The Minister has treated us with courtesy in Committee and at other stages of the Bill. I should like to thank him for that, but I cannot say that our questions and fears about the Bill have been answered satisfactorily. In any case, we believe this is the wrong Bill at the wrong time and for the wrong reasons; so we shall be voting against Third Reading tonight.

Mr. Flannery: The only good thing that can be said about the Bill is that it has enabled us to discuss education, which was inadvertent on the part of the Government. It is a squalid little Bill, to say the least. I am glad the Minister was polite during the Committee stage because he was most offensive and rude to me on Second Reading. However, I shall generalise and hope that his manners mend; apparently they are mending.
The Bill cannot be mended. As my hon. Friend has said, it removes from local education authorities about £46 million which they would have had automatically and which they would have been able to use in the interests of education at a time when cash is scarce in local authorities. It is nonsense to talk any longer about a partnership between local authorities and central Government. Local authorities are being thwarted in what they can do. A party whose proud boast once was that it was the party of local government is centralising affairs in general and in education in particular in such a way that there must be a fight back. The measure of that is the struggle that we have put up here today.
The way authorities are being forced to queue and compete with one another for money is a disgrace. Many of them will not get any. While other schemes to democratise education are being kicked out, this antidemocratic measure which deprives local authorities of much-needed money, is being introduced. What makes it worse is that the amount involved is so slender and local authorities need it now more than ever precisely because of the cuts in education.
What is really nauseating about the cut is that it is running parallel with the iniquitous assisted places scheme. In other words, at a time of scarcity of money when masses of people are in poverty and are wondering how they can pay their bills because of the wretchedness of the Government, public money, which would have given a tiny bonus to education, is being taken away.
What the Government are doing will result in some remedial teachers, who should be helping our children to read, being missing. As a teacher, I cannot laugh about that. The Bill means that scarce resources will not go to areas to which they should go and yet millions of pounds

of taxpayers' money will go to the private sector to ensure that children of the well-to-do are even better looked after at our children's expense.
Ministers talk as though they are being generous to poor children and as though they are giving them money. In fact they are taking money away from millions of such children so that they can provide for a few of their own choosing. It is now absolutely clear that the Bill is squalid. I wish it were possible to defeat it but at least what the Government are doing to our children is now on the record.

Mr. Fisher: The Bill addresses a vital educational need—educational experiment and curriculum development. Those are subjects about which Governments of both parties have done less than they might. However, the Government's credibility and their sincerity in espousing the cause of educational experiment would have been somewhat greater if they had given more support in the past four years to the Schools Council rather than running it down, if they had given more support to Her Majesty's inspectors with regard to experimenting with new educational ideas rather than being concerned only with administration, if they had offered more support for teacher training rather than closing down teacher training colleges and if they had offered more support for local education authorities and allowed them to maintain expenditure to invest in coherent advisory services rather than forcing them to cut expenditure on what have inevitably been regarded as the luxuries of education. For those reasons the Government's credibility in the education world is slight and shallow.
The Bill addresses a need but it is not the appropriate method by which to address it. The sums of money that are being discussed will not match up to the challenge of curriculum development and experiment for the future of our education. My hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) demonstrated admirably that such development and experimenting has been funded wrongly. Conservative Members who know about education are aware that, if the Bill were to make any educational sense, it would have to involve new money. It does not.

Mr. Greenway: The hon. Gentleman is a Socialist old Etonian.

Mr. Fisher: The Bill is incoherently timetabled and incoherently administered. It is sad that, when the Minister replied to the debate on new clause 8, he was quite clearly at sea. I hope that when he examines the wording of that new clause he will seriously consider it. He must conclude that, if he does not adapt his response to it his project, inadequate though it is, will founder and fail. Now, only those authorities which are far from penalty will be able to risk taking up the scheme. In other words, only the richest authorities will be able to get involved with it. I am sure that that is not the Secretary of State's intention. I hope that he will seriously examine new clause 8.
The most serious criticism that can be levelled against the Government in introducing the Bill is that they have done so without any educational flair or imagination. They have no real love for the learning process or the development of children of all abilities. When the Government introduced the Bill we heard little—almost nothing—about education. We heard about the nuts and


bolts, the justification for the administration, and other ways of funding the system, but we heard nothing in the speeches tonight, nor did we on Second Reading, by the Secretary of State or the Minister to show that they have risen to the educational challenge that could have been addressed by the Bill. The truth is that we have not heard from the Government any encouragement or incentive——

Mr. Greenway: The hon. Gentleman has not been present throughout the debate.

Mr. Fisher: —to challenge established educational ideas. The Bill should be concerned with initiating projects, about which we have heard nothing.
We have a real opportunity to examine some of the less brilliant and less idealistic educational practices. The small projects that will be funded could begin to question educational standards that should have been questioned in the past. I am not making a party political point, as Governments of both parties failed to address themselves to this issue.
We have not heard a clarion call by the Government for the new educational thinking and ideas that we might have heard. That is a tragedy for education, and an opportunity that the Government have missed. The opportunity has slipped through their fingers. It will be for local authorities to take up the challenge, in spite of the Government rather than because of them.

Mr. Sean Hughes: The Minister, in his opening comments to the Committee, said:
We, who are searchers after truth, will find as much time as we can to explain the detail of the Bill."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 22 November 1983, c. 3.]
The real truth to which the Minister failed to address himself is that the Bill is irrelevant to educational needs. The truth is, as the report of Her Majesty's inspectorate of July 1983 emphasised, that resources cannot be stretched to meet present demands and that the existing basic provision of education cannot be maintained. The Bill does nothing to meet that problem, as it does not provide new money, there is no injection of new funds and it does not even propose the principle of redistribution of existing funds.
If the purpose of the Bill was to redress the educational imbalance in our country, it would have won the support of the Opposition. If the purpose of the Bill was to direct resources from the educational haves to the educational have-nots, there would be reason to cheer. However, the Bill is not concerned with robbing Peter to pay Paul, and not even concerned with robbing Peter to pay Peter; it is about robbing Peter to extract a little more from him when he asks for his money back.
The Bill is apparently oblivious to the real educational problems in some areas where the basic need is scarcely met. It takes money from those authorities which are already hard pressed and on the border of a penalty zone, and which are striving to maintain basic levels of education in socially deprived areas, and will give it back to pay for schemes in support of priorities that are yet to be finalised, in amounts yet to be decided and at rates which will fluctuate with no guaranteed minimum. For the Government to say to local education authorities, "We are taking from you X amount, which you can have back as long as you spend it on Y and, by the way, you will have to pay Z for the privilege," is an incredible concept. It

might help matters if we could have some faith in the Secretary of State's judgment of what is best. No one seems to be sure about the number of priorities, let alone what they are.
The Secretary of State said last year in Leeds that there were five or six priorities. On Second Reading I thought he said that there were eight or nine priorities. I gained the impression in Committee that there were three or four priorities. When pressed in committee, the Minister seemed to waffle a little. He spoke of the need to consult, and the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) described to the Minister what consultation means. He also spoke of the need for flexibility in future developments. Now we are asked to accept that the Government believe that some priorities deserve public expenditure and attention at the expense of projects on which local education authorities are already spending resources, presumably because the local authorities believe them to be priorities in their areas. This provision must be made at the expense of something else, since the Government have made it plain that there will be no new money. How can the Government claim that, when they do not yet know what the priorities are?
This provision appears increasingly to be a political rather than an educational move. It seeks to increase the Secretary of State's influence on local government spending and to reduce still further local initiative. It reminds me of the old saying, "Go and see what Johnny is doing and tell him not to."
This evening Conservative Members have said much about the importance of choice in education. Choice, like freedom, is a much-abused word by Conservative Members. The existence of choice in education is based on the presumption that the vast majority of people will not exercise that choice.
In my borough—I am glad that the Secretary of State visited it last week, although he went only to the northern part and not to the southern part, which I represent—the word "choice" is a meaningless charade, not because of the dictates of local government but because we lack the material resources, the pleasant environment, the good quality housing and the tradition of educational ethos to make the fullest use of educational opportunity. So long as the Government deny the borough resources, the only choice that my constituents have is either to grin and bear it or not to grin at all.
The basic fault of the Bill is that it does not offer new resources, but withdraws present resources, and for that reason it deserves to be opposed.

Mr. Greenway: As a member of the Select Committee that recommended this Bill, I welcome its introduction. A significant feature of the debates on the Bill has been the sight of a Socialist Wykehamist and a Socialist Etonian telling Conservative Members, who are well experienced in state education, in a way in which they have never been and never will be, what we should do about comprehensive education. I do not wish to be told by a Wykehamist that his experience of comprehensive education is secondhand and therefore extremely valuable. I do not relish the thought of an Etonian who has not attended the debate standing up in the House and saying that an evening of valuable debate on education has had no educational content. I should tell him that this evening, in his absence, we debated support grants, nursery education, the


education of the handicapped and the disadvantaged, education support grants, post-16 education, remedial education, the entire spectrum of educational policy, streaming and setting in comprehensive schools, mixed ability teaching, English literature courses and examination courses.

Mr. Fisher: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Greenway: I shall certainly not give way. For the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) to say——

Mr. Fisher: rose——

Mr. Greenway: I will not give way. It was nonsense for the hon. Gentleman to say that the Schools Council should have been given more influence on Government policy. He is speaking of a folly that has rightly been abolished, having been in existence for a great many years at the cost of nearly £7 million a year without making any impact whatever on the schools it was intended to serve.

Mr. Fisher: rose——

Mr. Greenway: I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman has not made a proper contribution to the debate.
The Bill is valuable and I am sure that its effect on education will be of benefit to everyone.

Mr. Freud: We believe that any Government have a duty to make adequate educational provision for the public sector, and until such adequate educational provision is made, the Government do not have a right to introduce new schemes financed by money that has already been allocated. That has been the substance of the argument from the Opposition Benches. We have heard a great deal of sizzle, but have not had enough steak, and the steak is simply that this is a fair Bill using wrong funding.
We have heard much talk about choice, of which we are in favour. If that choice is assisted places that work out as seven in every constituency a year given, and taking, the opportunity of leaving the public sector and going into the private sector, that is not a great deal of choice. As hon. Members have said, most of our constituents have no choice when it comes to schooling. We should like to see innovations, and we should like to see the Government put their money where their mouth is to pay for them.
There has been much talk, although not in the last few speeches, about the courtesy of the Minister. He levelled an accusation at me at one time, because I had voted twice for the Conservatives and nine times with the Labour party during the passing of the Education Act 1976. He received a message from his advisers and told the House, "The hon. Member is a Socialist." The Minister obviously has reading difficulties because the message that he should have read was, "The hon. Gentleman is a specialist." I am a Liberal and the Liberals have an education policy just as other parties do. If the Minister has not read it, I suggest that he does, because that may broaden his mind.
I join Labour Members in welcoming the concept of the Bill and opposing its funding, and I warn the Government that the way that the Bill is being funded will mean that it is an elitist Bill, and only those authorities who are in no fear of going into penalty will contribute towards it.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 193, Noes 102.

Division No. 91]
[9.28 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Amess, David
Hampson, Dr Keith


Ashby, David
Hannam,John


Aspinwall, Jack
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Harvey, Robert


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)


Baldry, Anthony
Hawksley, Warren


Batiste, Spencer
Hayes, J.


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Hayhoe, Barney


Bellingham, Henry
Hayward, Robert


Benyon, William
Henderson, Barry


Best, Keith
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Hill, James


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Hirst, Michael


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Body, Richard
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Holt, Richard


Bottomley, Peter
Hooson, Tom


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Hordern, Peter


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Howard, Michael


Braine, Sir Bernard
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Bright, Graham
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Brinton, Tim
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Bruinvels, Peter
Hunter, Andrew


Budgen, Nick
Jessel, Toby


Bulmer, Esmond
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Burt, Alistair
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Butterfill, John
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Carttiss, Michael
Key, Robert


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Chope, Christopher
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Knowles, Michael


Clegg, Sir Walter
Knox, David


Colvin, Michael
Lang, Ian


Conway, Derek
Lawler, Geoffrey


Cope, John
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Cormack, Patrick
Lester, Jim


Couchman, James
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Lightbown, David


Dicks, T.
Lilley, Peter


Dorrell, Stephen
Lloyd, Ian (Havant)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Lord, Michael


Dunn, Robert
McCrindle, Robert


Durant, Tony
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Dykes, Hugh
Macfarlane, Neil


Emery, Sir Peter
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Evennett, David
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Eyre, Reginald
McQuarrie, Albert


Favell, Anthony
Madel, David


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Major, John


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Malins, Humfrey


Fookes, Miss Janet
Malone, Gerald


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Maples, John


Franks, Cecil
Marland, Paul


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Marlow, Antony


Freeman, Roger
Mates, Michael


Gale, Roger
Maude, Francis


Galley, Roy
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
Mellor, David


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Merchant, Piers


Goodlad, Alastair
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Gower, Sir Raymond
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Greenway, Harry
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Gregory, Conal
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)
Moore, John


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Ground, Patrick
Moynihan, Hon C.


Grylls, Michael
Murphy, Christopher






Neale, Gerrard
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Needham, Richard
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Neubert, Michael
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Newton, Tony
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Nicholls, Patrick
Stradling Thomas, J.


Norris, Steven
Temple-Morris, Peter


Onslow, Cranley
Terlezki, Stefan


Oppenheim, Philip
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Osborn, Sir John
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Ottaway, Richard
Tracey, Richard


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Trippier, David


Pawsey, James
Twinn, Dr Ian


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Pollock, Alexander
Waller, Gary


Powell, William (Corby)
Ward, John


Powley, John
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Wheeler, John


Proctor, K. Harvey
Whitney, Raymond


Raffan, Keith
Wilkinson, John


Rathbone, Tim
Wood, Timothy


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Younger, Rt Hon George


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas



Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sayeed, Jonathan
Mr. Archie Hamilton and Mr. Tim Sainsbury.


Sims, Roger



Spence, John





NOES


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Canavan, Dennis


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Cartwright, John


Beith, A. J.
Clarke, Thomas


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Clay, Robert


Bidwell, Sydney
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)


Blair, Anthony
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)


Boyes, Roland
Craigen, J. M.


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Dewar, Donald


Bruce, Malcolm
Dormand, Jack


Caborn, Richard
Douglas, Dick





Duffy, A. E. P.
Maxton, John


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Meadowcroft, Michael


Eastham, Ken
Michie, William


Evans, Ioan (Cynon Valley)
Mikardo, Ian


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Ewing, Harry
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Faulds, Andrew
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Fields, T. (L 'pool Broad Gn)
Nellist, David


Fisher, Mark
O'Neill, Martin


Flannery, Martin
Penhaligon, David


Forrester, John
Pike, Peter


Freud, Clement
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Godman, Dr Norman
Prescott, John


Golding, John
Radice, Giles


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Randall, Stuart


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Redmond, M.


Hardy, Peter
Richardson, Ms Jo


Harman, Ms Harriet
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Rogers, Allan


Haynes, Frank
Rooker, J. W.


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Home Robertson, John
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Rowlands, Ted


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Kirkwood, Archibald
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Lambie, David
Skinner, Dennis


Lamond, James
Soley, Clive


Leighton, Ronald
Spearing, Nigel


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Stott, Roger


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


McGuire, Michael
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Wareing, Robert


McWilliam, John
Winnick, David


Madden, Max



Marek, Dr John
Tellers for the Noes:


Martin, Michael
Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe and Mr. Don Dixon.


Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time and passed.

Select Committee on Procedure (Finance)

Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Major.]

Mr. Terence Higgins: I am grateful that we have an opportunity to debate the first report from the Select Committee on Procedure (Finance). When the history of the last Parliament is written in about 25 years' time, the Falklands war will undoubtedly feature as the most dramatic event. However, the reform of parliamentary procedure that occurred during the last Parliament may prove to be the most important development in terms of its long-term impact. During the last Parliament, Parliament began to reassert its control over the Executive.
The establishment of the departmentally related Select Committees was in many ways a watershed. Undoubtedly, some of the reforms that occurred during the last Parliament and the other reforms that we envisage would not have been and will not be possible without the establishment of those Committees. Much of the credit for that must go to successive Leaders of the House—my right hon. Friends the Members for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) and for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym) and to my right hon. Friend the present Leader of the House, whom I am glad to see present this evening.
As a result of the setting up of those Select Committees, the Select Committee on Procedure (Supply), of which I had the honour to be Chairman, was able to put forward a series of recommendations that the Government accepted. Those recommendations included, in particular, improvements in our procedure with regard to such items as debates on the Consolidated Fund. The central aspect of those reforms was the reassertion of parliamentary control. We made provision for the House, once again, to debate individual Estimates and items of public expenditure. That measure had fallen into disuse because the Opposition had effectively taken over the control of Supply days. We have abolished Supply days and instead we have Opposition days and the new Estimates days. That is a major change, and I shall relate it to some of my subsequent remarks.
In one respect, the House and the Government did not accept the recommendations of the previous Select Committee on Procedure (Finance)—that the selection of Estimates to be debated should be in the hands of an ad hoc committee. Instead, the Government decided, and the House agreed, that it should be in the hands of the Liaison Committee. On reflection, I am convinced that that was the right decision. It is appropriate that discussions on these matters, and especially on which Select Committee should have its Estimates debated on the Floor of the House, should be in the hands of the Chairmen of those Committees. It is probably true that that may in many ways be the Liaison Committee's most important function, together with the allocation of funds between the various Select Committees.
I am glad to turn to the report against the background of the developments that I have outlined briefly. The Committee's report is unanimous. We were successful in producing our report before the general election. However, that had one unfortunate consequence. I should like to toast absent friends, because hard work and

devotion to duty on the Select Committee on Procedure (Finance) was no guarantee of being re-elected in the subsequent general election. So, I pay tribute to some people who were not re-elected, especially Mr. Michael English, who, over many years served on the Select Committee; Mr. John Garrett, who did much to explain the details of the form of the Estimates; Mr. Frank Hooley, who had a number of original ideas; and Mr. John Roper, who from time to time introduced a sense of balance in our deliberations. None of those men is in the House to debate these matters, and therefore it is appropriate that the House should refer to them. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Patten) who has subsequently become a Minister, and will not be participating in the debate.
I gather that the Clerks of the Committee are, by tradition, never mentioned in the report. However, I know that members of the Committee are deeply grateful to Mr. Charles Winnifrith— whose blushes I hope to spare on this occasion — and to Mr. Poyser. They contributed greatly to the quality of the report.
The report has some pages that fold out and show the present financial procedures of the House and the timetable, as well as setting out our proposals for changes. I believe that that will be of value to the House, and especially to new Members of Parliament. Some time ago when I was new to the House, I was confused by the procedures of the House on finance, and the tables should be a help. Indeed, it has been suggested that they might be of value to other hon. Members as well.
In addition, we make specific proposals on the control of borrowing, the control of non-Supply expenditure, expenditure as a whole, long-term expenditure projects and the proposals put forward for budgetary reform with regard to the Armstrong committee's proposals. However, before turning to each of them as briefly as possible, I must point out that this debate is held against an unsatisfactory background. It is nothing short of deplorable that virtually six months after the general election, the departmentally related Select Committees have still not been set up. Even if Parliament goes its full term, for about one tenth of the time the Government will not have been scrutinised by those Select Committees as they should have been.
It would be presumptuous of me to allocate blame, but it is certainly not the fault of the Chairman of the Committee of Selection or of that Committee. We should not allow such a delay to happen again. It is true that this is the first time that we have been faced with such a problem after an election, but I believe that we should amend Standing Orders so that Select Committees must be set up within a month of the House re-assembling. If we set them up on that basis, and changes then have to be made, for example because of changes on the Opposition Front Bench, there is no reason why the membership should not be altered subsequently. It is unsatisfactory to go month after month without setting up the Select Committees, and we must take steps to ensure that that does not happen again. I very much hope that in due course the Leader of the House will table a suitable motion to deal with that point.
I come to the report's specific proposals. We rightly point out that with the exception of one or two minor historic aberrations, borrowing has never been controlled by the House of Commons. If Henry V wanted to do battle on the continent by borrowing money, Parliament had no control over what he did. On the other hand, if he wanted


to raise money by way of taxation, Parliament had some control, and went through the whole procedure of grievances being redressed and so on. Nevertheless, the Committee decided that it was high time that borrowing was subject to some control by this House. It is not true to say that if we have control over rates of taxation and expenditure, we have control over borrowing. Borrowing is at the very heart of economic management. We hear endlessly about the public sector borrowing requirements. As we point out, in March 1983 the projected PSBR was changed from £7·5 billion to £9·9·5 billion without the House having an automatic opportunity to debate that change.
We therefore believe that changes should be made. We asked that monthly figures for the PSBR should be provided. I am happy to say that that recommendation has already been implemented. We spent much time deciding what definition of borrowing should be the basis for control, but I shall not weary the House with the detailed arguments, which are all set out in the report. We also considered whether monitoring was satisfactory and whether we should have non-statutory scrutiny or some statutory control.
Objections were put forward in evidence, not least—perhaps not surprisingly—by the Treasury. One of the more surprising arguments to be put forward by the then Economic Secretary was that we knew what the taxation and expenditure were and that we could therefore do the arithmetic and tell the difference. However, although the House controls the amount of expenditure to some degree, it has no idea what the revenue is likely to be from the taxation proposals which it controls with considerable vigour. Therefore I am sure that the House, and the former Economic Secretary, who is now in another place, will agree that that is not a valid argument.
The second argument was that the control of borrowing would affect financial markets adversely, but we were not persuaded by that.
The third argument was that the margin of error between the two great magnitudes of expenditure and taxation was so great that no forecast would be meaningful. We thought that, within reasonable limits, that could be overcome.
Therefore we said in paragraph 43 of our report:
As regards control of borrowing, we are convinced that there is just as strong a case for the House to be given formal powers to approve the Government's borrowing requirement as there is for it to control expenditure and taxation. The argument that the requirement is uncertain could equally well apply to the outturn of revenue and expenditure, yet no one has suggested that Parliament should not have a say in decisions over these.
In many respects borrowing is a substitute for taxation and it is certainly so if one borrows to pay the interest on the borrowing that one has already made. In that respect, therefore, the case has been made and I hope that we shall have a satisfactory reply from the Treasury Bench.
I should like to refer to one other point on borrowing which was referred to by Sir Douglas Wass in one of his Reith lectures in the past few days. I refer to overfunding — the Government borrowing more money than they actually need, something which, for centuries, Governments of this country have managed to do without. Suddenly, during the Report stage of the Finance Bill a short time ago, we were—I am tempted to use the word "bounced" but I am sure that is unparliamentary—rushed into a decision on this issue. The Committee took

the view that, while it might be necessary in certain circumstances to overfund, it should be done only if the approval of the House has been obtained
by an Order subject to affirmative resolution".
I should like to deal now with non-Supply expenditure. We point out that, of the total expenditure, only about 50 per cent. is directly met by Supply and some 20 per cent. indirectly. So a large chunk of public expenditure is completely outwith the control of the House at present; items such as national insurance, local authorities, Northern Ireland, the EC, and so on. We recommend that we should have more data and that public corporations other than nationalised industries should provide it in the same way as nationalised industries do. We go on to suggest that the external financing limits of the nationalised industries should be subject to approval by the House on an amendable motion.
We also make one other specific proposal which I think is important. We all know from experience that the House as a whole has felt it unsatisfactory that rate support grant orders should be presented to the House effectively as a fait accompli, so that the House cannot actually amend them. We put forward proposals that suggest that a provisional set of rate support grant orders should be made and that time should be provided for debate on them and decisions taken before the final orders are made. That is an important aspect of the matter.
With regard to other areas, we felt that we could not go into a greater control—for example, on local authorities or the EC — without raising important constitutional issues which were beyond our responsibilities. At the same time, given that that was so, and that a considerable amount of non-Supply expenditure would not be directly controlled, we suggested that it would be right for the Treasury and Civil Service Committee to report on the total of Government expenditure which was proposed, to agree on suitable definitions, and that its report should be considered by the House and then subsequently incorporated in the annual public expenditure White Paper.
Next, and in a different order to the report itself, I should like to deal with the control of long-term expenditure projects. There is a particular weakness in our financial procedure in that it is based on what the report describes as "annuality". The whole financial procedure is related on an annual basis. Consequently it is possible, with a particular project, on which expenditure will be made over a considerable period, for the House not to have control as the matter develops. We now have the new procedure on the Estimates and therefore we recommend that a special arrangement should be made in the Estimates whereby a project can be considered at the beginning to see whether it is likely to have long-term implications. If that is so, we show that in the Estimates and the appropriate Select Committee can then consider it in detail and monitor it year by year to see whether it is indeed conforming to the profile that was originally suggested.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: If anyone should doubt the necessity for such a course of action on long-term projects, they should look at the financial history of the Concorde project that a Select Committee studied, and on which it reported. It is the best example that I can think of, of the need for this recommendation.

Mr. Higgins: My hon. Friend refers to the classic case for such projects, when the matter got out of control.


However, the matter goes much wider than such dramatic cases. Many Government projects start off with a comparatively optimistic estimate of what they will cost, but it escalates over the years, outside the control of the House of Commons. Other members of the Committee and I got the impression that procedures within Government as against those in the House are far from uniform with regard to the control of public expenditure long-term projects. The evidence from Sir Leo Pliatzky suggested that the idea of effective control within Government was overoptimistic. Therefore, the Government and, I am sure, the Treasury, which is always anxious to control public expenditure and waste, should view the recommendations sympathetically.
I refer to two comparatively minor points. One is about the contingency fund, on which we commented. Mr. Michael English had a great preoccupation with that issue, rightly so, as we had an example only last week of contributions to the EC, when payments had been made out of the contingency fund on a somewhat doubtful basis. Secondly, there are proposals on the provision of financial information, about which Mr. John Garrett was much concerned. He provided useful information to the Committee. In the House we cannot appraise estimates correctly if they are not presented in an intelligible form. We have made considerable progress in the past few years, but there is still some way to go. I am sure that by cooperation, particularly with the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, it will be possible to achieve that.
The Committee examined the proposals of the committee chaired by the late Lord Armstrong outside the House. It made specific proposals for changes, giving the ideas of, first, a green Budget, secondly, splitting the Finance Bill, and thirdly, bringing the expenditure and taxation sides of our affairs together. The House will recall that that matter was originally considered by the Procedure Committee. Subsequently it was considered by the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann). It produced a massive tome on budgetary reform. Then the matter was returned to the Procedure Committee for examination of the procedural implications of what had been suggested.
The Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee made specific proposals about a green Budget, some of which were accepted by the Government in their reply in July 1982, and some of which were not. We have made some progress in that direction, but we are still a considerable distance short of a true green Budget in the autumn. Therefore, we need to encourage the Government as much as possible to make further progress. No doubt some of my right hon. and hon. Friends will wish to comment on that. At all events, the matter needs to be considered by the various Select Committees, particularly the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee. We recommend that there should be a debate in the early new year each year, when the reports of those Committees can be considered.
This year the procedure has been different. We were asked to approve, not to take note of, the autumn statement a few days ago. In the absence of the Select Committees, we have not had a report on those matters. None the less, I hope that that will still be possible. I hope that my right

hon. Friend the Leader of the House is listening. I hope that it will still be posssible to have a debate on the subject in the new year before the Budget is formulated.
We also made specific proposals on Armstrong's ideas about splitting the Finance Bill. They were sympathetically represented in the evidence that we took from the then Chancellor of the Exchequer.
We suggest that the Finance Bill should be split. A taxes management Bill should normally be introduced early in each Session. The Finance Bill should as far as possible be confined to proposals for changes in the rates of taxation. Proposals for new taxes, if any, should be introduced in separate legislation rather than in the annual Finance Bill. The evidence that we received suggested that such a split would improve the procedures of the House.
Finally, there is the question of the integrated budget. Our recommendation is simply that the House should be asked to express a view on the principle of integrated procedures for considering expenditure and taxation. That, indeed, is what we are doing this evening. We shall all listen to the views expressed by hon. Members.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Motion in the name of the Prime Minister for the Adjournment of the House may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

Question again proposed.

Mr. Higgins: That is not a procedure that I would wish to change.
There is a clear case in economic terms for relating the expenditure side of the equation to the revenue side. The Treasury Committee considered that matter in considerable depth and came to the same conclusion. It endorsed with enthusiasm the proposals in the Armstrong committee's report. None the less, the procedural implications of that are substantial. The Select Committee on Procedure (Finance) set out quite clearly the two possible courses of action, one of which we might call a radical reform and the other a development of the existing procedures for an integrated budget. We have set out these two options. Clearly, the development of our existing procedures would enable us to go some way towards integrating the two sides of the equation.
It is my personal view—although I wish to listen to other views—that there is great attraction in modifying and reforming our procedures. However, the strength of the Treasury Committee's case is considerable and would mean a radical alteration in our procedures. It would mean that the Budget would be a budget in the true household sense, incorporating both the amount we expect to raise and the way in which we expect to spend it. However, it would also mean that debates on those subjects would be integrated, and we therefore set out in detail the way in which that could be done. What is proposed in the more radical reform is a practical change, but at some stage we would have to make a once-for-all jump from the traditional procedures to something completely new, and that would require a considerable effort on the part of the Government and of this House. That is something that we ought to debate. We should consider how best we can progress.
I am sorry that it has taken me so long to go through the Committee's recommendations, but these matters are vitally important. The previous Parliament was a turning point in which the House of Commons began to re-assert its traditional role. The power of this House has always


rested on the control of finance. It is important that we should do all we can to ensure that the House is able both to examine the detail of financial affairs and to consider, with the Government, the right course which the economy as a whole can achieve and maintain in order to produce the resources on which all other services must necessarily depend.
I have been honoured to chair the Committee. The report was unanimous; I hope that it will be of help and that the Government will also be able to help us in implementing its proposals so that we can continue the process of reform.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: We are all grateful to the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) and to his Committee for the excellent work that they undertook. The report is a valuable one and will have considerable influence on our deliberations on these matters for many years.
Like the right hon. Gentleman, I start from the view that the financial strategy of the Government must be under the control of the House of Commons. Taxation and its control lies at the heart of the operation of our procedures. In recent times, Government borrowing has been a major alternative to taxation. It has been used increasingly and has largely escaped parliamentary scrutiny. It is now time to remedy that omission.
Like others who have spoken on these matters over the past few years, I recognise the difficulties of definition and of forecasting the amount of borrowing that an economic strategy may entail. It is therefore right that, initially, such control over Government borrowing should allow considerable flexibility but greater control might be considered at a later stage.
I agree with the proposal to have the debate on the autumn statement following a report from the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee. That Committee, like other Select Committees, is a servant of the House working on our behalf and uncovering information that is presented to us for our better understanding. The work of the previous Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee under the leadership of the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) did much to improve our understanding of those matters and achieved for itself a recognition and respect which I hope its successor will be able to emulate. It helps to provide for a more constructive debate on the issues before us.
The absence of such a report was particularly noticeable during our debate a fortnight ago on the autumn statement. The Select Committee should be allowed time to do its work and present it to the House. It is not as if it were in any way dilatory in this matter. One astonishing aspect which has always surprised the House is the way in which such reports have been presented to us almost within days of the information being made available. Plainly, such speed of action does not allow much, if any, time for the taking of evidence. Any extra time could well be employed to the profit of the House and understanding generally. Such evidence could be taken before the report came before us, in time for the debate on the autumn statement.
In recent years, the Chancellor has been more relaxed about giving information on the broad lines of his annual Budget. That, plainly, needs to be encouraged. It is not surprising that there has been a move in that direction.

There are three main reasons why I believe it to be so. First, there was the introduction of value added tax. That new tax had a profound effect on the traditional secrecy of the Budget. Before that tax was introduced, not a whisper about tax changes could be heard from the Chancellor before Budget day.
VAT changed all that. The mechanics of the tax means that several weeks' notice have to be given of any changes. Whereas previously any indirect tax changes took effect from Budget day, now, that part of the tax changes attributable to VAT are delayed. At a stroke, the surprises associated with the mystery of Budget day, when no one really knew which taxes would be increased and which would be reduced were gone. Still less did one know by how much. At present one can make one's calculations and assessment and come to a better conclusion as to the direction and shape of the Budget.
At the same time, over the past few years, inflation, to which we have become accustomed, has meant that indirect ad valorem taxes require to be increased each year if they are to maintain their revenue. For that reason a substantial part of the Budget is known in advance.
Chancellors make use of that fact by leaking those parts which they consider might be of some help to them in preparing the public mind for their tax measures. I believe that it is time for the House of Commons also to take advantage of this new relaxation of secrecy by going further along the road to a green Budget setting out the tentative proposals for tax changes for wider consideration and debate inside and outside the House.
I note the proposal of the Select Committee to split the Finance Bill into two parts, one to deal with tax changes and the other to deal with technical changes. The main advantage of that proposal is that it would allow more time for debate, but it would also allow more tax legislation to be put on the statute book. Every Treasury Minister knows how the Revenue departments approach each change of Minister with a whole sheaf of measures which were rejected by the previous incumbent but which they hope will find a more ready response from the new Minister, who, like his predecessors, is convinced by the arguments but, unlike them, may not weigh fully the difficulty of parliamentary time and the deprivation of sleep in an all-night sitting of the Finance Bill Committee.
If our present archaic procedures keep Finance Bills shorter than they otherwise would be, I am frightened to think what they could become without the disciplines to which we have become accustomed. We have a virtual guillotine on the Finance Bill because of the statutory requirement to have the legislation enacted by the beginning of August. In the early hours of the morning during the Committee debates, any division of the Bill seems a sensible and obvious thing to do—the barbaric nature of our existing procedure can surely be bettered —but we must be aware that, once the debate is less confined, the amount of parliamentary time that these matters could consume would rise rapidly, and the amount of tax legislation would also increase.
I noted the prudence with which the Committee dealt with the question of the integrated budget. Rightly, it was in favour of it, but it was unsure how to handle the procedural aspects and left that open for the House to express its collective view. The problem of fitting an integrated budget into a sensible debate is a difficult task. That is not to say that one cannot achieve an integrated budget. Of course, one could have revenue on one side and


expenditure on the other side of the accounts, and one could have a general discussion on that. The difficulty comes when one starts to debate such a budget.
Any debate on taxation is reasonably coherent. There are, even now, only a limited number of taxes and hon. Members can express their views on them, on the effects they produce and on the wrongs and rights of the various issues. But when we come to debate expenditure, we can have a debate stretching over an enormous number of issues, ranging from the provision of nursery education for the under-fives to the Trident programme. It is difficult to get that wide variety of matters into one sensible debate, and those belonging to pressure groups rise and speak without reference to anything that went before.
A sensible way to approach the division of expenditure among different programmes — the only sensible way that we have so far discovered—is to have pressure groups acting on Ministers. I would supplement that by having pressure groups acting on Select Committees. It is surprising that pressure groups have not so far exercised themselves on Select Committees, which themselves can be pressure points on the Government. It is only by responding to all the pressures that Ministers reach their conclusions.
We must not forget that probably the most valuable way in which any Government bring about a change in public expenditure is by having the ablest, strongest and least malleable Minister in charge of those programmes which a Prime Minister thinks should be increased. It is just a question of responding to the various pressure points.
This a valuable report, and I am pleased to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his place tonight. I urge him to take these matters seriously, as I am sure he will. The advantage of the House of Commons is that Ministers frequently regard themselves as right hon. and hon. Members of this House first and Ministers second. I hope that, at least to some extent, that is still the case and that both will respond positively to the debate.

Mr. Edward du Cann: If I may start on a note both sweet and sour, first, I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) and his colleagues who produced the admirable report that obviously took them many hours of hard and devoted labour. Secondly, I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), the Leader of the House, that I think that it is a great pity the House should be debating a matter of such constitutional and practical importance so late in the evening. This business is far more important than the business that went before it. It is very unsatisfactory that the House should deal with its affairs in this way. All the more credit then, as the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) suggested, that we have the Chancellor of the Exchequer with us tonight. His presence is greatly appreciated.
The great political divide in the House and in the nation is symbolised in the arrangement of the Chamber. The constitution recognises our confrontational parliamentary system. Thus the debate and argument range between the Opposition Members in general, who believe that a higher proportion of our gross national product should be spent by or influenced by the state, and Government Members

who take a contrary view. I think the fact that the argument has so dominated our political life is the chief reason for economic sluggishness ever since the end of the war.
Be that so or not, in this controversy there is one certainty that is agreed by all hon. Members. On whichever Benches of the House one sits, on whichever side of the argument one stands, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing intimated, we Back Benchers have for some time been united in our view that it is essential that the burgeoning machinery of government, irrespective of its size, the huge influence and authority of the Executive — and huge it certainly is — be brought under a more careful and continuous scrutiny.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing was right again. The last Parliament was a turning point in this discussion. We who are honoured by being the people's representatives have a severe duty. We are the trustees for those whom we represent. We are the only ones with the opportunity to engage in that process, the only ones with the power, if we will have the spirit to take it. We took action in the last Parliament and we established the departmentally related Select Committees. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, I deplore the fact that six months after the election the Committees are still not re-established and we shall have to have a timetable for them enshrined in Standing Orders in future.
So far so good. There is another stage now to which we should move in this Parliament. By comparison with the best commercial experience, we exercise little financial control or surveillance over Government. For example, the Public Accounts Committee, of which the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyme is now the distinguished chairman, is an inquest only. We need increasingly to get into the examination of contemporary accounts. We do not combine an examination of revenue and expenditure at the same moment. We do not budget in the ordinary sense of that term. We very rarely compare outturn with forecast. There is no examination of the expenditures of nationalised industries. We very rarely survey the bodies in receipt of huge amounts of public funds. Indeed, in the Parliament before last we even established two new huge quasi entrepreneurial bodies, the National Enterprise Board and the British National Oil Corporation, and established no machinery of any kind under which to survey what they were doing. Unlike an ordinary corporate affair, we do not survey the report of internal auditors, we muddle up capital and income and our Estimates —though something has been done to improve them—are unclear. At one moment we are looking at items of a few hundred thousand pounds and at the next moment we are looking at items of £1 billion or more. I repeat, by comparison with the best commercial experience, we exercise little competent financial control or surveillance over the Government and what they do. It is not surprising, therefore, that a number of us have had a determined ambition to change this state of affairs.
Not the least important reform of the last Parliament was the decision to allocate three days in every Session to a detailed discussion of the Estimates. It is a pity, through no one's fault, that the general election prevented a full Session's experience of the new Estimates day procedures. It would have been much easier to assess whether the Select Committees were ready and able to take on the additional financial functions referred to in my right hon. Friend's report if we had had at least one year's experience of Estimates days. One thing one can be clear about is that


when the new Select Committees are established they must give financial matters a very high priority indeed in their work.
We should remember that it was during the period of struggle with the Crown that Parliament established what was then an effective system of scrutiny of expenditure. It no longer exists and it should be our purpose now to do our utmost to restore it. That is the whole point of the debate. The question is, how far can that cause be advanced? Good government is our business, and good financial management is at the heart of good government.
For us on the Back Benches it is fundamental that we should be clear about our duty as Members of Parliament. It is not our function only to be legislators, mere critics after the events. We are not part of the Executive, as so many members of the public sometimes mistakenly think. We are, in effect, its auditors and its only auditors. Our job is to expose the Executive to effective scrutiny, to let daylight into what Government are doing and to insist continuously on value for money. Our sanction is the denial of Supply; and, if need be, we should use it. If we are careless or if we fail, who else will do this work? It would he a betrayal of democracy, I suggest, not to enhance the process of inquiry.
My right hon. Friend went through a number of detailed recommendations in the report — the control of borrowing, the parliamentary control of non-Supply expenditure, public expenditure as a whole, splitting the Finance Bill, the control of long-term expenditure proposals and the provision of financial information. Each one of those proposals has much to commend it. They are far-reaching. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, during what I hope for him will be a long and successful period of office, will over the years ensure that they are progressively implemented.
For myself I want to concentrate on only one point, and to refer again, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wothing did, to the sixth report of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, published in 1981–82, on budgetary reform. I am pleased to see several members of that committee here tonight, including the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright), my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, all of whom were marvellous members of the team.
What we considered as far back as that to be the key issues — I believe rightly brought up originally by Armstrong — deserve careful scrutiny by the House. They are referred to in part V of my right hon. Friend's report. There were two main themes in Armstrong. The first was that expenditure and taxation should be taken together at all stages of the budgetary process. I am sure that that is right. The second was that there should be a green period prior to the Budget when Parliament and others should examine, discuss and debate provisional proposals made in the autumn statement. If that were done, it would involve the nation very much more in the whole process of government and budgetary procedures.
After that, there would be a white period after the Budget when the final proposals would be subjected to appropriate parliamentary processes. We hoped in the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee that all of the Select Committees would have a part to play in both periods. We were inclined to put a good deal of emphasis on the importance of the green period, as the right hon.

Member for Ashton-under-Lyne suggested, probably because that is where we thought the main reforming thrust of Armstrong lay. That was the point which I tried to make to the Procedure Committee when it was king enough to give me the opportunity to do so.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will not mind if I say that I am sorry that I thought that the Procedure (Finance) Committee was lukewarm about the green period. Paragraphs 95 and 96 of the report give little guidance about how the Committee would like to see a Green Budget developed. The report even goes so far as to exonerate the 13 non-Treasury Committees from participation in the exercise unless they especially wish to do some work. I am worried about that in that, if we are not careful, that is the type of approach which might give the Government an excuse to behave as they have done in this and in previous years—put the matter on in debate in the House soon after the autumn statement without waiting for any Select Committee reports and then regard the matter as closed to the Floor of the House. That is no good. The key to progress, as the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne suggested, might well lie in the public expenditure White Paper.
The Procedure Committee might be right to say that the autumn statement is not a satisfactory document for Select Committee purposes. What becomes ever clearer to me is that, nowadays, with the tremendous political emphasis that is placed on the run-up to the autumn statement, all of the decisions which are subsequently reflected in the Public Expenditure White Paper are taken at the time of the autumn statement exercise. There therefore seems to be no possible excuse for the Public Expenditure White Paper coming out two or three months later. It should be published before Christmas. That would greatly ease the path of Select Committees during the green period. We could easily make a reality of the green period. It is easy to do, given will and determination. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House will express themselves clearly during the debate to that effect.

Sir Peter Emery: Having served on the Select Committee, I believe that it is important that my right hon. Friend should understand that examination of paragraphs 95 and 96 of the report to which he referred reveals that the limitation was that only two Chairmen of Select Committees — those which are departmentally aligned — were in doubt. It was not a case of the Committee being in doubt. We were recording the evidence which was put before us factually. The general feeling of the Committee coincided strongly with the views advanced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann). I am glad to see that he is nodding his head in agreement—I know that he would not want to mislead the House.

Mr. du Cann: If I have got the matter wrong, I am greatly reassured. My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) has great judgment in these matters. I am glad that he and my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) are ready to affect leadership in this matter. It is much needed.
I hope that my comments on the white period will be right. In that regard, the Procedure Committee was a little uncertain as to how it might proceed. During this Parliament— I make this point in the presence of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House—I hope that


when we have the new Procedure Committee established part of its remit will be to give more attention to finding ways in which to make the white period a practical reality.
I should now like to say a little about the machinery. If we put new duties on the 14 Select Committees, it is all the more essential that they are constituted in good time. As the former Chairman of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, I should like to point out that full implementation of the report would put great burdens on it, especially if we have to take the lead in reporting on the autumn statement, not only report on the Budget but take a large part of the Finance or expenditure Bill through its Committee stage, conduct monthly exercises on borrowing, conduct twice-yearly monitoring exercises on the progress of expenditure, report on long-term expenditure and have several ad hoc initial tasks.
I wonder how the present Committee of 11 hon. Members, unless it were to abandon its past policy of holding wide-ranging inquiries into economic, Civil Service and other matters, which I hope have been useful to the House, could find time to carry out such tasks adequately. I am coming increasingly to the view, as expressed by the Liaison Committee in a report to the House in the previous Parliament, that there may well be a case for broadening the work of the Select Committees by allowing them to divide their work, some of which can be performed by Sub-Committees. There can be no earthly reason why the Government should decide whether the Select Committees should be allowed to establish Sub-Committees.
I hope that I have made it clear that I am a strong advocate of the Armstrong approach. My right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing said that that was what the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service recommended in the previous Parliament.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in reply, will make it clear that he subscribes to what Armstrong and the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service recommended in the previous Parliament, and to what the Committee of my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing is now recommending.
The House can be pleased with the progress. Step by step advance is undoubtedly correct. We insist—I use that word advisedly — that the momentum must be maintained.
A majority of Back-Bench Members are determined to make their work in the House as effective as possible, to bring a new window and clarity into the work that Government and the Executive perform in our name, to act constructively as a spur to their confidence and to insist, above all, on administrative excellence. I truly believe that our people deserve no less.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The first duty of any hon. Member taking part in the debate who served on the Select Committee on Procedure (Finance)— it was penal servitude with hard labour—is to express the immense contribution made to its work by the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins). His determination, tact and perspicuity were essential to crystallising the Committee's work and getting it presented to this—indeed, to the previous Parliament.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the report was unanimous. The report would be unanimous if it were by a Royal Commission; but the House has an agreeable way of combining unanimity with dissent in the reports that it obtains from its Committees. The present case is no exception, as will be observed by those who follow the time-honoured rule, in reading the reports of Select Committees, of looking at the minutes and proceedings printed at the end. Those who are sufficiently curious to do so in this case will discover that a certain conservative —in the literal sense, with a very small "c"—frame of mind was made manifest especially in the later recommendations of the report—those concerned with attempting to defeat the principle of annuality with dividing the Finance Bill into triplicate and with endeavouring to remedy the separation of the Budget from the Estimates.
I was fascinated to note that the same hesitations as are expressed in some of those defeated amendments were expressed by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon).
There is a free masonry among ex-Financial Secretaries to the Treasury. All of us who have been Financial Secretary to the Treasury are never quite the same afterwards—"never glad confident morning" to the same extent again. I share the right hon. Gentleman's doubts as to whether we shall succeed in defeating some of the realities of the world and of human nature that are enshrined in those apparently illogical and objectionable forms of our procedure.
As regards green and white budgets, and the share of the House in making Budgets, I must tell the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) that his panegyric upon the function of this House as essentially the check upon, and opponent of, Government is entirely salutary and entirely justified. But the House also sustains Government — Government sits in this House and is carried on by means of this House. Secrecy and power are two of the attributes of Government. We in the House may modify, and may sometimes, to some extent, break them down; but as long as there is Government, we shall never succeed in taking them over and embodying them in the procedures of the House.
A future historian of public finance in the United Kingdom will put a special asterisk upon the report of the Select Committee, and he will emphasise especially one of its recommendations. It is the recommendation in which we broke new ground by saying that the House should control borrowing as it controls expenditure and taxation. In a way, the wheel has come full circle. We are accustomed, with disputable accuracy, to trace the origin of this assembly to Simon de Montfort and the baronial quarrels with Henry III. But it was the borrowing habits of Henry III, as he successively sought to promote the fortunes of his brother as king of the Romans and his younger son as king of Sicily—if he was his younger son. [Interruption.] I did not mean to cast doubt upon the succession to the Throne, Mr. Deputy Speaker—which got him deeper and deeper into debt, in some cases to some very disreputable sources of finance, with the result that, sooner or later, he had to be bailed out by means of taxation. To that extent, it is true it was the consequences of the Crown's borrowing—the Government's borrowing—which, through the baronial opposition and Simon de Montfort and the rest, brought something passably resembling this assembly into existence.
In the succeeding centuries, the importance of Government borrowing diminished. Admittedly there was a great crisis of borrowing in the period of wars at the end of the 18th century and in the Napoleonic war, when immense finance for the waging of war was raised by selling Government debt; but at that time it was funded debt. Only in these degenerate days, when we discovered and developed fist money, have the Government threatened to escape from control altogether by means of borrowing — to use inflation as a more acceptable alternative to taxing visibly and parliamentarily.
It was, therefore, high time, if not overdue, that a Committee of the House should say that we must somehow manage to bring the third element—borrowing—under parliamentary scrutiny and control. But which borrowing. A student of the report will see the efforts which the Committee made to define the appropriate magnitude of borrowing for the purposes of control. There can be different magnitudes. The economist may be interested—I have never been absolutely sure that he is right—in that cloudy generality, the public sector borrowing requirement. Those hot on the heels of Government taxation by means of inflation will be more interested in the Government's borrowing for its own expenditure, or for loaning onwards to their creatures or their collaborators—CGBR, I think, but even in my long service on the Committee I never got the initials infallibly right.
It is those two magnitudes which initially the Committee sought to bring under scrutiny and control; but I do not believe that it will be found possible to stop there. We shall be forced to investigate the forms of borrowing, and the sources of the borrowings that add up to the total. It was a significant moment in the life of the Committee when we discovered that in order to play the money market the Government had been borrowing much more than they needed. A rather over-candid publication of the Treasury displayed this satanic practice so clearly that the Committee drew attention to it in a number of examinations of witnesses, and may actually have occasioned the amendment of the law that was introduced in the last Session of Parliament to give some respectability to the process.
This will have to be, as with much of these procedures, an evolving business. We must start by tackling the total magnitude and then we must go on to see how it can practicably be broken down and studied. Hon. Members who read the report will see how much in our work we leaned upon the Select Committees—and not only upon the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, although we leaned most upon that. Indeed at one stage we had to impose a self-denying ordinance, because we found ourselves saying whenever we struck a difficulty, that it would be dealt with by the Select Committees.
We have been able to produce, at any rate, an initial working structure for the control of borrowing, by charging part of the scrutiny upon the relevant Select Committee. I was much struck when the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne — I am perhaps paraphrasing him, but I think this is what he meant—said that it would be good for the Select Committees to have to pay attention, perhaps on a larger scale and perhaps more strictly than hitherto to the subject of expenditure. Perhaps even here there may be the first beginnings of a wheel coming full circle; for it was from

the public expenditure committees and their operations that eventually, through several successions of chrysalis and butterfly, the present Select Committees emerged.
The relevance, and indeed the essential function, of the Select Committee for making possible a new sphere of parliamentary scrutiny and control illustrates the way in which these improvements in our procedure should evolve. We shall now have digested, if the contents of this report are at all accepted by the House, three procedural meals in three successive Parliaments. There is a limit to the digestive capability even of this House and its powers of assimilation. Those powers depend greatly on experience in working a machine, watching it at work from year to year, and trimming it here and there as we go. There is a certain danger, if I may venture to say so. in the House of Commons innovating too much, too fast —possibly faster than the influence of experience can be brought to bear on its innovations.
I am glad therefore that the Committee found itself so closely concerned with the work of the departmental Select Committees. Those Committees are clearly the key mechanism in the structure of scrutiny and control. We must not overload them and we must learn from their experience. The new report has enabled us to see other ways in which they can be used to enable the House, as well as the Government to gain a greater grip upon Government finance and thus a greater grip upon the economy.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Moore): I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me an opportunity initially to intervene at this relatively early stage. I thought that it might be for the convenience of the House if I were to indicate in broad terms how the Government view the recommendations of the Procedure Committee and the basis on which we think it appropriate to approach them. With the leave of the House, and if I am fortunate to catch your eye again, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to make some comments additionally at the end of the debate.
I welcome the opportunity to participate in such an important debate on the report of the Procedure Committee, so ably chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins). The Committee reviewed important and critical matters which go to the heart of the relationship between Parliament and the Government of the day. I have listened with great interest to the distinguished contributions which have been made so far.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, whose report we are now debating, served on the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service throughout the previous Parliament. The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) served with distinction on a number of Committees and is now Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. My right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) is a founder Chairman of the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service and of the Select Committee which considered expenditure nearly a decade ago. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) has long been an expert in some of the most difficult of the areas that we are now discussing. It will be no easy matter for me to intervene in a debate in


which we have had speeches from one former Economic Secretary to the Treasury and three former Financial Secretaries to the Treasury. I feel suitably abashed.
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, I shall say a word about each of the Committee's 17 recommendations. Before I do so, it may be helpful if I outline the Government's approach. The Committee's recommendations cover a wide area and are a large meal to digest. They can be grouped, as the Committee grouped them, in seven broad themes. First, there are those which deal with parliamentary scrutiny and control of public borrowing; secondly, non-Supply expenditure; thirdly, public expenditure as a whole; fourthly, reform of budgetary procedure; fifthly, parliamentary scrutiny and the control of major long-term expenditure projects; sixthly, the status of the contingencies fund; and finally, the means of presenting financial information to the House.
There are two overriding principles that have guided the Government's approach to the report. The first principle concerns access to information. The Government must try to meet the legitimate demands of the House for information about the public finances necessary for the proper performance of its functions. In doing so, the Government must have regard to cost and market sensitivity. But, subject to such constraints, we wish to be as helpful as we can. Secondly, in all these matters, it is essential to have regard to what it is practicable, as well as desirable, to try to achieve.
The Committee addressed itself first to the control of public borrowing. In fact, as hon. Members will have perceived, its first three recommendations are concerned both with the mechanics of control and with the information needed for that.
The Committee urged the Government to take steps to improve the flow of information about public borrowing through the year. This is an important point and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing said, we have already done something about it. As of last month, we now publish, about a fortnight after the end of the calendar month, the PSBR for that month broken down between its major components. This replaces the figures previously produced only quarterly and the more restricted monthly figures relating only to the CGBR. New figures include details of the central Government's borrowing on their own account—the CGBR(0)—on which the Committee particularly focused attention, although I take the point of the right hon. Member for Down, South. The new information also covers borrowing by local authorities and nationalised industries from the market which counts towards the PSBR, but not the CGBR. I believe this is a significant improvement on the previous published information.
But the Committee went further and suggested that it would be useful for the Treasury Committee to have information monthly about the performance of the borrowing requirement against the forecast. We have serious doubts about that. The course of the PSBR during the year needs to be assessed in the light of wider economic factors. That is why, under present arrangements, the Government publish revised forecasts of the PSBR outturn with the autumn statement and again at the time of the Budget, as part of their general review of

economic prospects. There is a risk of the markets being misled by over-interpreting short-term movements in the PSBR.
The Committee also asked for information about how the Government's borrowing is financed. I hope that the Committee did not underestimate the extent to which the available information is published already. The full money and banking figures, on a banking month basis, contain all the information available internally about the take-up of central Government debt by the non-bank private sector, analysed by class of instrument. Details of the financing of the CGBR and the PSBR are already given on a calendar quarter basis. There is no calendar month information available on the central Government financing by sector.
The Committee recommended legislation to provide for House of Commons control over the Government's annual borrowing requirement on their own account. I have to tell the House, as we told the Committee in evidence, that we cannot agree with that. I ask the House to recognise that the Committee's report does not deal with the practical difficulties—for example what would happen when the cumulative borrowing requirement reached its statutory limit, even though expected to come back within it by the end of the year.
There is a more fundamental dilemma. If new powers of control over Government borrowing are fairly loose they risk becoming ineffective. Yet, if they are too tight, they could conflict with policies on public spending and tax which the House has already approved.
I now turn to the Committee's third recommendation concerning what some describe as "over-funding". No responsible Government would pledge themselves not to use the instrument of higher debt sales to offset excessive growth in private sector demand for credit if that seemed the best way of achieving sound monetary conditions. I do not think that any hon. Member will wish to challenge that. But my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor said in his speech at the Mansion House on 20 October that
over the medium term there should be no systematic tendency either to overfund or to underfund the borrowing requirement.
It is, in any case, mistaken to view the provision in the Finance Act 1982 allowing the Treasury to borrow for reasons of monetary control as marking a significant change in policy. Quite the contrary. It was designed simply to remove a technical obstacle to the continuing use of funding as an instrument of monetary control.

Mr. Higgins: Is it the case that previously there had been no significant overfunding and that the change embodied in the Finance Act enabled the Government to adopt a policy which had not been adopted by successive Governments during the previous century?

Mr. Moore: That is not true in this case. I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the financial year 1977–78, when there was overfunding. There was no previous assumption that the manner of overfunding in that instance was illegal. The way in which the national loans fund was likely to go technically into surplus created a difficulty. It was clear that this needed to be overcome to ensure that the Government were not acting illegally.
I come next to parliamentary control of non-supply expenditure—those parts of public expenditure that are not met out of the Consolidated Fund and incurred on services covered by the Estimates laid before the House.
The Committee focused principally on expenditure by public corporations and the local authorities. The


Committee noted, with some justification, the present disparity of treatment, in terms of information in the White Paper "The Government's Expenditure Plans", of expenditure by the nationalised industries proper and the other, mainly smaller, public corporations. The financial information in the White Paper on many of the so-called "other public corporations" is rather thin and a little scattered. One reason for this, as the Committee recognised, is that the sums involved are rather small in the context of public expenditure as a whole.
None the less, we think it right that the House should have more information and we are planning to include additional tables in the next White Paper. We shall have to limit the information to what is then readily available, and it will not go as far as the "sources and uses of funds" statement provided for nationalised industries. But it will be a step forward which I hope the House will welcome, and we hope to move further in that direction in later White Papers.
As for the nationalised industries as a whole, the Committee expressed some concern that present arrangements did not, in its view, sufficiently provide the House with opportunities to scrutinise and control the annual external financing limits. Its solution was to recommend that the external financing limits should be subject to approval in total by the House, on an amendable motion.
The nationalised industries' EFLs are an important part of public expenditure. But we cannot agree that the House does not have adequate opportunities, under present arrangements, to bring its influence to bear on these matters. There are already a number of opportunities for the House to debate economic matters, when the question of nationalised industries external financing limits would naturally arise. But, in our view, it would neither be feasible nor desirable to subject the total of EFLs to approval by the House on an amendable motion. The nationalised industries are at present notified of their individual EFLs the previous autumn. The effect of the Committee's recommendation would be to introduce continuing and unsettling uncertainty for the industries concerned. Moreover, any subsequent changes which gave rise to an increase in the total of EFLs, however urgent, or however trivial, would need to be brought back to Parliament for approval. The industries' freedom to take commercial decisions and respond to rapidly changing circumstances would be reduced. I cannot think that that is something that the House would welcome. Of course, the House has regular opportunities to review the circumstances of individual industries.
The Committee made recommendations on local authorities' expenditure. Its views are embodied in two recommendations: Nos. (6) and (7). Essentially they argue for the publication of provisional rate support grant orders — what the Committee styled "Green" RSGs — to be published before the end of the summer recess, for discussion by the House. In the Government's view, that would not be practicable. On last year's pattern, when the orders were presented in December, it would mean advancing the timetable by three to four months. But we certainly accept the importance of giving both local authorities and the House as much early information as possible about these settlements. It is for precisely this reason that this year and last the broad outlines of the

settlements were announced in the summer, well before their formal presentation. Having regard to practicalities I hope that the House will see this as constructive.
The Committee dealt next in its report with parliamentary consideration of public expenditure as a whole. In paragraph 83 there is an important sentence. The Committee said:
While we reject the concept of a binding control by the House over the totality of public expenditure, we believe that there should be more scope for effective scrutiny of the Government's management of the economy as a whole, as reflected by the public expenditure planning total.
As I read that part of the report, the Committee saw this as an evolutionary process, and it noted that the House had already increased its scrutiny in many ways over recent years, not least through the operations of the new Select Committees, as the right hon. Member for Down, South mentioned.
An evolutionary approach is, I believe, what is required. The Committee's particular recommendations go further than we can accept, but improvements on the present position can be made, and indeed we are already making them.
On the question of definitions—recommendation No. (8) — the statistical coverage of the planning total definition, and analyses within the total, are highly technical matters, as an article to be published shortly in "Economic Trends" will testify. But changes on them are certainly not made arbitrarily. Where they are made, they are intended to improve either control or the realism of the figures.
I can give two assurances. We shall certainly inform the Treasury and Civil Service Committee before making any fundamental changes in coverage of the public expenditure planning totals. And we believe that we can also make it easier for people to make comparisons between one White Paper and another, where the definitions have changed from year to year. We shall be including additional material to that end in the next White Paper. The Committee recommended the publication of quarterly profiles of the public expenditure planning total for the year ahead. For the reasons that I gave in relation to borrowing profiles, we do not think that would be either practicable or appropriate.
We do wish to provide the House with earlier and fuller information about expenditure outturns. Quarterly outturn figures for the planning total have been published in "Financial Statistics" for some years. They are currently published some four months after the end of the quarter and we have been looking at ways of reducing, that interval. Supply expenditure outturn figures to the end of September were published on 17 November in my note on the winter Supplementaries. Figures on the rest of the planning total take longer to assemble, but we hope to give the Treasury and Civil Service Committee an estimate of the whole planning total about a month earlier than hitherto. I am hopeful of further progress in the future. We are also looking at ways of improving the presentation of these figures.
I turn now to the important section of the Committee's report which deals with proposals for budgetary reform. First, I refer to the recommendation No. (10) for a regular debate in January to take note of the autumn statement, together with motions to approve the external financing limits of the nationalised industries. I have already dealt with the latter part of this, discussing the Committee's


proposal on EFLs generally. As to the first part, for the past three years there have been debates on the economy in January on an Opposition motion, following reports on the autumn announcements by the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton. However, hon. Members will be as aware, as I am, of the already severe pressures on the time of the House. Matters of finance have to compete for the available parliamentary time with other essential business, and it may be best for the precise timing and form of debates on them to be left for discussions through the usual channels.
In recommendation No. (11) the Committee proposed a wholesale and radical restructuring of the arrangements for tax legislation. Recommendation No. (12) is about integrated procedures for considering expenditure and taxation. They overlap to some extent. It may be helpful if I comment first on the Committee's proposals for handling tax legislation before coming to the idea of an integrated Budget.
There are three proposals: first, that a Taxes Management Bill should be introduced early in each Session of Parliament; second, that the Finance Bill should, so far as possible, be confined to proposals for changes in rates of taxation; and, third, that proposals for new taxes should be made in separate legislation rather than in the annual Finance Bill.
I shall take the last point first: separate Bills for new taxes. That is, of course, not a new idea. Hon. Members will recall a number of occasions when new taxes have been introduced in separate legislation, for example, Petroleum Revenue Tax in 1975, Development Land Tax in 1976 and the National Insurance Surcharge in 1977. To do so always is not something on which any Government could give an absolute assurance. But if, in future, we were to see the need to propose a major new tax, the Committee's recommendations would certainly weigh with the Government.
I fear that I cannot be as forthcoming in my view of the Committee's other two recommendations, which would involve splitting the Finance Bill regularly into two parts —a spring Bill confined to changes in rates of taxation and an autumn Bill, which the Committee called a Taxes Management Bill, for all other tax matters. A glance at any recent Finance Bill will show just how small a part is concerned with tax rates, and how large a part is concerned with other kinds of tax changes, many of which are important in financial, economic and distributional terms. Therefore the Committee is really suggesting deferring the great bulk of Finance Bill matters to a separate autumn Bill.
To separate those matters from the main Finance Bill and to put them into a separate Bill, at a different time of the year, far from making it easier for the House to judge the Government's proposals as a whole, would in our view make that task much more difficult.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Has my hon. Friend, in preparation for the debate, troubled himself to read the evidence given to the Select Committee by the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer? As the views that he is now putting forward are so different from that evidence, will

he be good enough to acquaint the House with the reason for the disparity between what he is now saying and that evidence, given by the previous Chancellor?

Mr. Moore: I have, of course, read the evidence. I would not seek to address the House without having addressed myself to the evidence to the Committee. I am not sure that I wholly share my hon. Friend's view about the views expressed by my right hon. and learned Friend the former Chancellor of the Exchequer. There is no question about the fact that sympathy was expressed with aspects of the matter. I shall re-read the evidence and reaquaint myself with the views of Her Majesty's Government on this issue.
The Committee's proposals for an integrated Budget would go on to add expenditure and borrowing provisions to its slimmed down Finance Bill, on the principle of bringing together for the House's consideration all decisions on expenditure, borrowing and revenue bearing on the Government's financial strategy. There is perhaps some element of conflict between the suggestion that the Finance Bill should be made more comprehensive in this way and the Committee's proposals to relegate to a separate autumn Bill many important tax proposals which go to make up the Budget and which shape its overall balance, revenue implications and effect upon individuals and firms.
I must therefore tell the House that we do not share the Committee's enthusiasm for the approach proposed in the first two parts of recommendation No. 11. However, we certainly share the Committee's aim of improving the scrutiny of tax legislation.
I need not remind the House of the extent to which, under this Government, consultation on tax matters before legislation has increased, with the issue of Green Papers, consultative documents, exposure drafts, and so on. We intend to build on that, and indeed a large part of next year's Finance Bill will have been through that process.
I need to say one more word about the recommendation for an integrated Budget. It is rather different from the Committee's other recommendations, in that the House is invited to express a view on the broad principle of integrated procedures for considering expenditure and taxation. For our part, I suggest there can be no disagreement about the principle. Indeed the Government made their position and objectives clear in the course of the very detailed examination carried out by the Treasury and Civil Service Committee in preparing their report on budgetary reform.
The Government have made a number of substantial changes, particularly in providing the House with more comprehensive information about their financial plans, as the Procedure Committee recognised. Indeed, recent discussions of the fiscal prospect this year and next following the Chancellor's autumn statement would not have been possible before 1982, since that was the first time such detailed figures had been provided in the autumn. But I shall certainly continue to listen carefully to the views expressed in the latter part of the debate.

Mr. Tim Smith: Are not the Government taking a substantial step backward on the question of the Taxes Management Bill? Six years ago, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) said in a speech to the Addington Society that we should have a technical taxation Bill. If my hon.


Friend is so concerned to improve the scrutiny of tax legislation, is there not a case for changing the date when tax proposals are introduced? If there is a Finance Bill in April each year, it is inevitable that the consideration of detailed, technical tax proposals is rushed. Technical tax proposals should be contained in a Taxes Management Bill, as the Committee recommended much earlier in the Session.

Mr. Moore: I hear what my hon. Friend says, and I read his personal submission to the Committee. I am aware that there other views on the matter, but I am expressing the considered view of Her Majesty's Government at present.
I turn next to what the Committee had to say about our present procedures for dealing with long-term expenditure projects. I know that this is a matter of particular interest to a number of Members on both sides of the House. The Committee devoted a good deal of space to the subject and, since time is pressing on, I hope that the House will forgive me if I do not deal with it at great length.
Securing better management of long-term capital projects is an objective which we all share. But in our view, this is not an area where it would be appropriate to introduce any new procedures. As the Committee itself acknowledged, we have already done a good deal in the 1983–84 Supply Estimates to increase the information given to the House about these projects. We shall continue to look for scope for giving supporting information, either in the Estimates or in the Expenditure White Paper.
The contingencies fund is already subject to well documented and uncontroversial rules designed to restrict its use to the absolute minimum. We do not believe it to be necessary or desirable to introduce any new limitations. Nor, in view of other pressures on the time of the House, does it seem right to take up parliamentary time with legislation designed simply to confirm existing practice. I understand that some hon. Members — as my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing has already said—take a different view. I shall listen further to what the House has to say on the matter.
The Committee's final recommendation, that there should be a full inquiry into the financial information provided for the House and its Committees, was addressed to the Treasury and Civil Service Committee and the Public Accounts Committee, and they will no doubt consider it.
The fact that I have taken so much of the time of the House is a mark of the importance of the inquiries conducted by the Committee under the outstanding chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: I have listened to my hon. Friend with great interest, but I regret having to say that I feel that he has taken a great deal of time to give us practically nothing.

Mr. Moore: I hear what my hon. Friend says. If he manages to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will seek to respond.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: The Minister might change his mind.

Mr. Moore: I might be persuaded to change my mind. I have spoken at some considerable length, and I regard that as showing the importance of the subject. I am glad

to have the opportunity to pay tribute to all of those who served with my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing on the Committee including, as he rightly said, some who gave distinguished service and who are no longer Members of the House. I look forward keenly to the further contributions that hon. Members will make to the debate.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: The tone and content of the Minister's speech show that the submission of the report's proposals to the House is hazardous. The proposals, sound and timely as I believe them to be — many speakers have demonstrated how sound they are—comprise an intricate package. They should be treated as such. There seems to be a danger, clearly implied in what the Minister has said, that as the Government intend to use their majority to vote down or refuse some parts of the package, the House may be left with a new and rather burdensome structure for long discussion devoid of any capacity to make decisions.
There is a danger that discussion in the House of intricate economic matters and financial management can become something of an "in game". We could delude ourselves—myself included—into thinking that we have achieved great things simply by pronouncing upon the Government's policy without seriously influencing it in any way.
It is disappointing to me and to my right hon. and hon. Friends that the Government are apparently determined to resist those parts of the proposals which have a real bite —particularly, of course, the control over borrowing. The hours that in recent years have been spent in the Chamber ventilating wise and interesting opinions on the public sector borrowing requirement must be within the recollection of most, if not all, hon. Members who are still present. We might as well have saved our breath for all the difference that that has usually made to Government policy.
Some enthusiasts for the new departmentally related Select Committees will at once resist my argument and say, "Ah, but what about the publicity that the reports of these new Select Committees have received since they were set up? What an important weapon the unanimous views of a Select Committee has proved to be in influencing public opinion." I am not filled with as much euphoria about that as some hon. Members, because it seems to me that the Select Committees are beginning to exhaust the initial advantage of their impact on public opinion.
In the beginning, Select Committees were novel, and naturally the media were interested in what these strange new animals would do and say. There were some happy arrangements over chairmanships, and many of the Government's policies were novel, which added point to Select Committee comments on them. Finally, there was the initial difficulty of many witnesses in adjusting to Select Committee procedure. Some of our Select Committees had an entertaining field day during the first two or three years. All that is beginning to fade. It is not enough simply to provide new structures for Select Committees to scrutinise and comment upon Government financial policy.
Furthermore, one sees that relatively few of the Select Committee reports were debated in the House. When I remonstrated with colleagues in and about the precincts


that we ought to have more debates on Select Committee reports, the usual, and very fair, riposte was, "Well, what if we do—what does it lead to, where will it get us?"
If the Government have their way, the Minister will leave us with more opportunities for talk and learned scrutiny, but with no major opportunities for further control. Not only are the Government unwilling to submit their own policies to control, but they are being very shortsighted in failing to realise how valuable such control would be from the Conservative point of view when eventually the electorate deprive them of office and Conservative Members are opposing some other party in government. Conservative Members may then take a rather more positive tone.
I wish to draw the attention of the House to the crashing disappointment about the Treasury's new attitude to the idea of a taxes management Bill separate from the Finance Bill. This is walking backwards with a vengeance. I hope that Government Members will not allow the Treasury to get away with that sort of retrograde de-civilising action.
The Minister made an astonishing statement in an attempt to support his disdain for a separate Finance Bill covering the rates of taxation. He said that tax rates are much smaller than the tax arrangements, tax revisions and tax management parts of a Finance Bill. If the Minister is stooping merely to counting the words in a Finance Bill, he must be right, but could he get up in front of any body of opinion outside the House and suggest that all the pages of redefinition of some obscure points of a tax in a Finance Bill have one whit of the importance of the vital sentences which contain the rates of tax? If the Minister has leave of the House to speak again, I hope he will withdraw the suggestion that simply because the essential parts of a Finance Bill—the rates of the levy upon our citizenry—are few they are therefore of less importance.
One matter which gave the Treasury Select Committee the greatest confidence in examining the former Chancellor of the Exchequer in the last Parliament was the former Chancellor's persistent loyalty to what he had said to the Addington Society about splitting the Finance Bill. The House was told, without any apology or explanation of why the Treasury view has changed, that this is considered, as I believe the Minister was at heart trying to say, to be inconvenient to the Government. If that is not the reason, I hope the Minister will develop a rather better excuse for reneging on the previous Chancellor's clear commitment to a separate Bill. It will be a great opportunity missed if the Government try to withhold from the House the decisive parts of the proposals and leave us only with additional powers of discussion.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: I am surprised that the Treasury Bench intervened at such an early stage in the debate. The Chancellor having withdrawn, the Financial Secretary is presumably in the position of having no licence to depart from anything he has already said in response to what was supposed to be a continuing debate, and I find that highly unsatisfactory on the part of the Government. If I am told that the Chancellor has withdrawn because of the lateness of the hour and because he has his boxes to deal with, my response is that is was the Government's choice to have the debate at this hour, not that of Back Benchers or of the

Committee whose work resulted in this report. That is a further reason why it is unsatisfactory to have a debate such as this at this hour of the night.
When the Chancellor of the Exchequer gives evidence to a Select Committee of this kind, the House—not just the Committee to which he gave that evidence — is entitled to expect the response from the Treasury Bench to the Committee's recommendations to be consistent with the evidence given by the Chancellor, otherwise the Committee has no basis on which to make recommendations to the House, unless there is a degree of predictability that the intentions of the Government are embodied in the evidence that they gave to the Committee, at any rate at that point.

Sir Peter Emery: Might we not be likely to conclude that we had a reforming Chancellor in the past and we now find that control has been re-established by Treasury officials wishing to revert to a policy which a reforming Chancellor was able to get them away from?

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Unfortunately, we are left to speculate on whether that is the case, a speculation in which we would not have to indulge if the Chancellor had thought it right to participate in this debate.

Mr. Moore: rose——

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: One intervention at a time, please. However, it is not for me to deny the shrewdness of the prediction that my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) makes.

Mr. Moore: I assure my hon. Friend that the absence of the Chancellor will in no way prevent me from answering the point on which he seeks further comment.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: That exemplifies the attitude of the Treasury Bench—to answer, rather than respond to, the points that are made. It is to respond to the Committee's recommendations that we look to that Bench, not to answer them. It is a distinction with a difference.
In the summary of recommendations the report says:
The Government should lay before the House, before the end of the summer recess, provisional rate support grant Reports or Orders, including a specification of the distribution formula.
It is necessary and desirable not only for the House to exercise proper supervision, but to enable local authorities to make rational financial plans for the coming year. I bracket with the three recommendations Nos. (6), (7)(a) and (7)(b) the items under the heading
Control of long-term expenditure projects
because one is apt to think of long-term expenditure projects being exemplified, for instance, by the Concorde project, but that is only one category of continuing liability.
There is another category that may interest the House, and that is the whole mechanism of repair and renovation grants by local authorities. What happens is that the Government announce—and change during the year—the percentage grant. By changing the percentage, the Government do more than what they purport to do, for if the percentage grant is increased that alters the pattern of demand. In other words, there are two variables. When it goes as high as 90 per cent., a response is generated that is not generated with a 50 per cent. grant. When that grant can be taken up not just in the financial year but after the end of it, that means that central Government are imposing on local government a continuing liability that is not under local government control.
The real situation is even worse. It is an interesting illumination of continuing liability. I think I am right in saying that the way in which central Government finances grants of this kind from the point of view of the Exchequer contribution is by 20 per cent. in the first year and then 10 per cent. per year for the following seven years, whereas many hon. Members believe that the Government's 90 per cent. contribution is paid in the year in which the grant is actually paid out to the individual householder. That is not the case, if I am correctly informed.
So what happens is that grants of this kind give rise to a liability on the consolidated fund which extends for seven years from the uptake. We are starting to get halfway to the sort of time span encompassed by the Concorde project, the Humber bridge or such things. It is particularly important that Parliament should be able to monitor the consequences for future years of measures adopted by central Government which then pass outside their control and, incidentally, outside the control of local authorities as well into a nebulous world of no control at all.
In passing, the old Trade and Industry Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on Public Expenditure once discovered in the course of examining witnesses an interesting example. British Leyland was set up under the National Enterprise Board in such a way that any expenditure of less than £1 million was not monitored by the NEB. The NEB believed that the Department was monitoring it; the Department, on the other hand, believed that the NEB was monitoring it. In fact, neither was. So at that time BL could have engaged in unlimited quantities of expenditure commitments so long as each one individually was £1 under £1 million. Yet the arrangements which brought that into existence were continuing rather than annual.
What this report had done in part is to illuminate that what appears to be a semblance of parliamentary control and supervision is neither in the case of continuing projects.
Although my hon. Friend, speaking so prematurely from the Treasury Bench, indicated that the House has what he called other opportunities of debating external financing limits for nationalised industries, it is necessary to point out that a debate on a statutory instrument is by its very nature a debate on a non-amendable question, whereas a Bill, including a Finance Bill, can be amended by the House; admittedly where expenditure is concerned, it can only be amended downwards, but amended it can be.
It is inherent in the characteristic of a statutory instrument that it is not amendable by the House. Therefore, to regard the occasions when there is an order before the House to alter the external financing limit of a public corporation or a nationalised industry as a substitute for a Select Committee as recommended reveals either that the Minister is unaware of the difference between what the Committee has recommended and the statutory instrument process through the House, or else that he needs to justify why it should be regarded as an acceptable alternative to what the Select Committee has recommended, which as yet he has not done.
Running through the unsatisfactory Treasury Bench intervention was a fundamental, though not specifically stated, objection which the Treasury always has to any control by the House — other than control which is formal rather than actual. Of course the Treasury finds

such control by the House distasteful. It often finds the process of the 14 functional Select Committees distasteful. Either the control, as opposed to mere monitoring, must be exercised by the Select Committees or it must be exercised by the House.
The pattern of the past few years, which the House has determined for itself because options were open to it, is not that it should subcontract control to the Select Committees but that the Select Committees should ferret out information and highlight for the benefit of the House the significant information which, in the view of the Select Committee, should be brought to the attention of the House so that the House, if it so wishes, can take effective action. If that is not the case, all that has been invented is a new way in which to waste everyone's time.
I do not share some of my colleagues' enthusiasm for the proliferation of sub-Committees, for several reasons. One is that every sub-Committee has to be manned by a Clerk. It is difficult enough to man the Select Committees with what, without disrespect, I shall call real Clerks. It has been customary to man some of the Select Committees with what are privately known in the Clerk's Department as retreads. They are people who have followed a career in the public service outside Parliament and come here specifically as Select Committee Clerks. They are outside the normal promotion structure of the Clerk's Department. Although that might have been satisfactory as an emergency measure, it is less satisfactory than having Select Committees manned by what I shall call career Clerks — those who have chosen the service of the House as their career. It is unfortunate that the so-called retreads include ex-members of the Diplomatic Service whose lives have been devoted to pretending that wholly incompatible interests are merely a confluence of opinions which just happen to differ on some trivial and passing phraseology. A Select Committee's cutting edge is removed if it is not served by a Clerk who is experienced in and dedicated to the service of the House. The Clerk's Department has no option but to employ retreads if there is an unpredictable proliferation of Sub-Committees. It cannot, from its own resources, expand its manpower to serve a proliferation of such Committees at short notice. Such demands could be met only after a long time and considerable retraining. Sub-Committees are apt to speak in the name of the Committee unless the Committee monitors the Sub-Committee properly.
Another undesirable matter is a Committee altering the recommendations of colleagues who have heard the evidence when the Committee has not. That was one of the principal criticisms of the old Select Committee system. Members of the Select Committee used to alter the report of the Sub-Committee in material ways. The changes were not simply to do with emphasis and phraseology. The result of the system was that the bulk of the menbers who had not read the evidence, and certainly had not heard it by participating in the questioning of witnesses, altered the recommendations of the Committee which had done the work. It is much better to set up more Select Committees with smaller membership, so that everyone knows where he is and responsibility is clear cut, than to have Select Committees that may be oversized—11 is too many—and have them spawning an amorphous mass of Sub-Committees.

Mr. John Maxton: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the Select Committee on Scottish


Affairs, which covers a wide range of topics? It has 13 Members but is not allowed to appoint any Sub-Committees. That makes the work of the Committee very difficult.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: If we agree that Scottish and Welsh Select Committees are necessary—and they can cut right across the terms of reference of the main Committees of the House — there is likely to be a proliferation of demand for sub-Committees. The Scottish Select Committee wishes to emulate the functions of the departmental Select Committees. That is the nature of the problem.
Of necessity, Sub-Committees will tend to sit in the afternoons, while the main Committees will sit in the mornings. That further impoverishes the lifeblood of Parliament on the Floor of the House. The party committees and the all-party committees also meet in the afternoons.

Mr. Maxton: The hon. Gentleman is missing my point. The Scottish Select Committee has other commitments. It covers a Department of State — the Scottish Office. It is unfortunate that the Scottish Office covers the functions of a large number of United Kingdom Departments within Scotland. Therefore, the Select Committee, in monitoring the work of the Scottish Office, cannot concentrate on single issues—as can other Select Committees—but must cover a wide range of topics.
Of course, I believe that there should be a Scottish assembly and that no Scottish business should take place in Parliament. But if there is to be a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, we must look carefully at how it operates.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: The hon. Gentleman has illuminated the need to give further consideration to whether there should be such regional Select Committees. Some of the detailed investigations— for instance, on airport policy — which the Scottish Select Committee examined, cut right across the main line functions of other Select Committees.
However, we are debating not the Select Committee system, but the first report of the Select Committee on Procedure (Finance). There is enough meat on that bone for us to confine ourselves to that.
It is a sad day for the House when a report which has involved such heavy work, and which has been so carefully considered and drafted, should be debated late at night when the principal Minister concerned is too busy to do more than sit through the start of the debate, and when the Government decide upon their response before they have even heard what many hon. Members have to say. It reduces the debate largely to a farce. That is not an acceptable response to the Select Committee's recommendations.

Mrs. Renée Short: The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) has made some severe criticisms of the way in which the Select Committees work, and I do not agree with all that he says.
The Select Committees are not especially large. Nine hon. Members do not constitute a large Committee. The Committees as set up are satisfactory. I doubt whether more members would make them more efficient. I agree

with what the hon. Gentleman said about the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman should be present to hear what hon. Members are saying about the report, but I imagine that we can manage without him.
I wish to add my congratulations and thanks to the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), before whom I had the pleasant experience of appearing as a witness, which is a case of the biter bit. I survived my baptism of fire before the right hon. Gentleman's Committee, and I found the experience exhilarating.
I hope that the Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons will have some regard to what has been said about the need to get the Select Committees working again. I advise the right hon. Gentleman that a parliamentary question has been tabled for a priority answer on Thursday, which I hope will be satisfactory.
It is quite deplorable that since the election no Select Committees have been set up and no work has been done. Several Select Committees have reports awaiting completion. We are performing a gross discourtesy to those who appeared before the Committees as witnesses, who submitted written evidence and who allowed us to visit their regions to investigate the problems that were being examined.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): The reason why the departmental Select Committees have not been established is that they were objected to on the Floor of the House. The sooner they are established, the better.

Mrs. Short: As there is a procedure for dealing with such arbitrary objection to the setting-up of Select Committees, why has it not been acted upon?

Mr. Biffen: Simply because the history and ethos of the departmental Select Committees is to proceed by agreement and conciliation, if possible, rather than by debate and vote.

Mrs. Short: It is regrettable that the work of the Select Committees can be held up in this way.

Mr. Biffen: I quite agree.

Mrs. Short: I hope that the matter will be dealt with as expeditiously as possible.
Most of the recommendations directly affecting the work of the Select Committees apply especially to the Treasury and Civil Service Committee, and to those Select Committees which have the nationalised industries within their remit.
Two matters considered by the Select Committee on Procedure (Finance) would impinge on the work of the Select Committee on Social Services—I hasten to say, if only we had one. I informed the Select Committee on Procedure (Finance) that the Committee responsible for examining the policy, administration and expenditure of Whitehall's biggest spending Department cannot but take an interest. The Department of Health and Social Security, somewhat discouragingly, informed the Treasury and Civil Service Committee that the Government would be unable "without inefficiencies" to change cash-limited services between the appearance of the green Budget or autumn statement in November and the public expenditure White Paper in the new year.
I find this hard to believe. The Government are always in the business of adding or subtracting vast sums to or


from their planned expenditure either by transfer—by sleight of hand—or by raiding the contingencies fund. Select Committees can examine the autumn statement with some effectiveness. It is vital that the autumn statement should be informative, and as close as possible to the detail contained in volume 2 of the White Paper published in January or February. If such information were available in the autumn, any Select Committee could and should use it.
Sadly, nothing much has happened to make that more likely. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told the Procedure (Finance) Committee that he believed that the autumn statement was all right as it was, and I fear that the Committee swallowed that claim. At paragraph 96 the Committee observed:
We do not see them"—
meaning Select Committees—
being able to put specific proposals to the House on the basis of the present Autumn Statement.
But surely that is not the case at present. During the previous Session of Parliament the Social Services Committee produced a report on the pensions clawback proposed in the autumn statement, and this year, if the Committee existed, and if it were still minded to, it could examine the cut in housing benefit. That would be a suitable subject for examination, and I am sure that other Committees could do likewise with matters that affect them.
The Procedure (Finance) Committee was right to say that, on the current information available, Select Committees cannot do much. In this year's autumn statement, which related to £50 billion of expenditure, there were eight lines on health and personal social services, with not even the simplest breakdown of allocation, and there were seven lines on social security. That works out at £3 billion for each line of print, which is unsatisfactory.
I am disappointed that the report that we are considering does not demand more information but simply suggests a debate in January on a report by the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee on the autumn statement. However, the Committee did not take up the suggestion made in oral evidence by the then Chairman of the Treasury Committee, that that Committee should act as an umbrella for reports from other Committees. I hope that the new Treasury Committee will be aware of other Committees' interests in the autumn statement, and that the house will ensure that those Committees are provided with the tools to do the job. I hope that the Government Front Bench takes note of that point.
Part VI of the Committee's report deals with the control of long-term expenditure projects. In the context of the DHSS, that means primarily hospital building. Those were the most expensive long-term budgets on which the Committee heard evidence from the Department's officials. I welcome the Committee's conclusion in paragraph 139 that, despite the disadvantages set out by civil servants,
the obvious benefits to be derived from some system of specific project approval outweigh the practical difficulties.
I look forward to the consultations on the definition and identification of projects as proposed by the Committee, as hospital building would be a fascinating subject to consider.
However, I have one reservation. I told the Procedure (Finance) Committee last October that I was attracted by

the idea of parliamentary budgetary authority being required. The problem is that, by the time a major hospital building project appears in the Estimates, much money has already been spent. Fifteen such projects appeared in the 1983–84 Estimates, on 10 of which more than £1 million each had already been spent. The original departmental approval in principle had been given, and in many cases there may have been delays or second thoughts. Schemes and plans can be altered. An example is the blowing hot and cold over the Telford new hospital. If that is built, it will affect the future of many small hospitals that are working and serving patients. I understand that the scheme has now been abandoned after long discussions and much money being spent. Another case in point is the Derbyshire royal infirmary. In general, we can expect to see the big schemes at Scarborough, Peterborough, St George's, Bournemouth, and so on, roll inexorably forward. If these are well-planned schemes, I hope that they do go forward.
If Parliament is to have any effective say at an early stage, it must be at the stage of approval in principle, when the Department can spend several months looking at the submissions from the regions. In April 1983, a dozen such schemes were being appraised by the Department, including major schemes at Ashington in Northumberland, Stafford and Manchester. There is no sign of these in the Estimates, although they may be in the 1984–85 Estimates. By then, effectively, irreversible decisions will have been taken. This reinforces my argument that we should be able to look at these schemes earlier.
The Procedure (Finance) Committee wisely observed in paragraph 143:
departments should make their proposals available to the appropriate Select Committee as early as possible.
I hope that all the Departments will take note of that. That may mean before an appearance in the Estimates. and the practice of token Estimates referred to by the Committee might usefully be employed to alert the Committee, which is important. The Committee should be alerted so that it can take action and carry out its investigations before it is too late and money has been thrown down the drain.
The DHSS witnesses to the Committee saw two disadvantages in specific projects approval—delay, and what they called dilution of the lines of responsibility. Neither of these is a serious objection. The process would ensure real ministerial accountability to the House, and that is what it is all about. No more than the occasional scheme would be delayed.
The new Select Committees must be able to carry out the tasks that Parliament has placed upon them. We need more time in the House to debate the Select Committee reports, and I hope that this will be provided by the Leader of the House because the Select Committees have an important function to play, not only in monitoring what their Departments and Ministers are up to, but in informing all those outside the House who take a great deal of interest in the reports of the Select Committees.

Sir Peter Emery: The hour is late, but the timing of the debate rests in the hands of the Government. I have to raise my voice to say that that should not be so when a matter of this importance for the reform and use of Parliament and the use of Members' time is debated. Many newer Members of Parliament are not paying attention to the debate because they do not understand what is involved, since they have not been here long


enough. If the report had been debated at the normal time, it would have been of great benefit to them to see what was being recommended. Therefore, the planning of the debate is wrong.
If anyone needed to see the benefit of membership of the Privy Council, it was demonstrated today. Privy Councillors spoke, and then came the diktat from the Government for the rest of us to follow afterwards.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: And the exit of the Chancellor.

Sir Peter Emery: I do not believe that other than a small minority understand the long-term parliamentary effect of the provisions before us on the work of Parliament, and especially the work of the Select Committees.
I agree with the presentation of my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) in describing the role of Select Committees and the role that they will need to play in future in dealing with the review of Estimates and Supplementary Estimates. A small number of Members meeting in an advisory capacity could examine such matters in the greatest detail in a way which the House, or a Committee of the House, could never do.
If a sub-committee of a Select Committee were used specifically and solely for dealing with Estimates and Supplementary Estimates—this view is not shared by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop)—a detailed study could be prepared by three or four Members and presented to the whole Select Committee. That would be a sensible and reasonable way of carrying out a review. I accept my hon. Friend's for Tiverton's argument on the proliferation of Committees, which would lead to a Sub-Committee on every subject. That would obviously be nonsense. However, I urge my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House carefully to consider the merits of allowing specific sub-committees to the Departmental Select Committees to deal specifically with the financial and Estimates matters that will arise from the recommendations of the two procedure reports, one on Supply and the other on finance.
I was interested in the remarks of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). If I have counted them correctly, the report has 15 divisions. The right hon. Gentleman was right to refer to the considerable variance of views, which was not restricted to party divisions. For example, I voted with the right hon. Gentleman at one time and with some Socialists on another occasion. The voting extended across the board when were dealing with the recommendations, but at the end of the day the Committee was unanimous in its recommendations under a skilled and hard-working chairman, my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins.) The praise given to him today is well earned.
The main purpose of the report was to allow the House to become involved—perhaps more than ever before—in the financial aspects of government. That extended beyond expenditure to economic and financial control, which is now so much a part of the general management of the nation. That is why I found some of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury very disappointing.
I believe that the Committee proceeded to do some of the work that the Treasury should have done for itself. It is not surprising that it welcomed that. However, it seemed

only to welcome the Committee doing those things which it should have done itself. When it came to considering the control of what Ministers and Government get up to, we returned to the normal Civil Service and Treasury response, the attitude that it is better to let sleeping dogs lie and proceed as in the past. I tried to give my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary some notice of the reply by the present Foreign Secretary when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. Column 241 of Vol. 2 of the minutes of evidence show that it was clearly stated that the work of the ancillary Finance Bill dealing with management aspects was
an offer, we would suggest, to meet your need".
The snag is that that matter would require parliamentary time. The Minister's answer was based not on the parliamentary time argument, but on a rejection of the concept.

Mr. Moore: I am sorry to interrupt at this stage. I shall try to address this point in more detail at the end of the debate. I hope that my hon. Friend draws the attention of those people who were not privy to the Committee meeting or who have not read the evidence to columns 236 and 237, as well as the column to which he referred. I hope that he will allow people to understand the difference between a particular debate on the character of the ancillary Finance Bill, to which the present Foreign Secretary referred, and the totally different procedure that is now recommended. There would seem to be—I shall elaborate on this point later — fundamental differences between those two points.

Sir Peter Emery: I am delighted that my hon. Friend referred to those columns, because they mainly concern my cross-examination of the Chancellor and it is not often that Ministers wish to bring those matters to the attention of the House.
Having played a fairly intimate part in that side of the evidence, it was my overall impression——

Mr. Higgins: indicated assent.

Sir Peter Emery: The Chairman of the Select Committee nods his head — that the Chancellor was willing to go along with the suggestion about the introduction of a taxation management Bill. I am disappointed to hear that that measure is now being rejected. I do not know whether I would call that a de-civilising step—that is a rather strange term from the Liberal Benches—but it was a very retrogressive step.

Mr. Keith Best (Ynys Môn): Does my hon. Friend take heart from the fact that my right hon. and learned Friend the then Chancellor said in column 236 that he anticipated the ancillary Finance Bill becoming
a more ambitious thing later on if it works. At this stage what I am looking for is a bonus means of dealing with matters that are not otherwise dealt with, and to add another image—a bonus that can be channelled down a bypass, as it were."?
Was my right hon. and learned Friend thinking that this would be just the beginning, and not the sum total of the advance?

Sir Peter Emery: I am delighted with my hon. Friend's help. He draws attention to parts of the evidence which support my argument and which I can only refer to Treasury Ministers for further consideration.
I suggest that the comments of the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright), that the Select Committees were running out of steam, were contrary to


the facts. He seemed to have misunderstood or not considered that the recommendations of the Select Committee on Procedure (Supply) that the work of those Committees will be brought to the Floor of the House on three Estimates days—this measure is in the Standing Orders — will go a long way towards meeting the criticism and show that the work of those Select Committees is being encouraged. We have only previously had one day for these debates because of the election, but the Committee's recommendations have now been included in the rules of the House.

Mr. Wainwright: I must have expressed myself singularly badly, because I had no intention of suggesting that I thought that Select Committees were running out of steam. I believe that the media who reported them so volubly and enthusiastically in the early years are running out of steam on this point.

Sir Peter Emery: I am delighted to have that extra definition, which I had not understood from the hon. Gentleman's speech.
I come to the major reform involving control over borrowing and long-term expenditure. Borrowing and long-term expenditure are at the very nub of the reintroduction of some parliamentary control over the whole area of Government finance. After all, when we spend so much time on Supply and taxation, it is nonsense to leave the Government with absolute control, to do what they like, as they like, without any reference to parliamentary control over borrowing. It is like trying to have a triangle with only two sides. We are trying to give it that third side by giving the House the financial control that we believe it should have.
The Treasury's response seems to be that it is impossible to give the House the information that will allow it that control. But does not the Treasury have that information? If not, we had better get rid of the whole Treasury. However, if it has that information, and the Minister knows it, why should it not be given to the House? Why would it be inconvenient for Members of Parliament to have it? I should like a full answer to that question, because it is at the heart of the matter.
The Committee suggested the most lenient form of control. Perhaps we bent over backwards too far to try to ensure that that control would not hamper the Treasury unduly and prevent it from carrying out its management functions properly. However, we thought it right that if statements that had to be given to the House were seen to be massively over-running, the Government should have to come to the House and explain why things had gone so seriously wrong, and allow the House to express its view on the subject. Does the Treasury think that that is wrong, and that the House should not have that power? Does the Treasury think it wrong that Members of Parliament should be able to debate such specific matters that are vital to the control of the economy? The Treasury's statement implies that the House should not be allowed to have that control.
The report refers to control of long-term expenditure projects. In my short time of about 24 years as a Member of Parliament, I have been worried by the way in which long-term capital projects have got out of hand. When they were first introduced, we did not envisage the amount of capital expenditure that would be required to bring many of those projects to fruition. Any sensibly managed

business that undertakes a major capital expenditure project ensures that a rolling estimate of the long-term cash requirements of the project is demanded at least annually.
We are only asking the Treasury to update annually exactly what the Departments really believe will be the total cash requirements of the scheme. We are not trying to suggest to the Government that capital sums may not alter. There will be many reasons why they should. We do not believe that there need be criticism if the criteria have altered, so that new and extra money is required. However, we think that the only way to stop Government worrying about future cash requirements is to ensure that annually they have to review the total projected or forecast cash requirements and report to the House.
That is a normal business requirement of any efficient organisation. If the Treasury does not have that hold over the capital requirements of projects within Government and the Departments, it darn well should have. On the whole, it is most likely that it has. I do not believe that it has at all times, but in most instances it has. If it has not, we should ensure that it has. If it has, the House has a right to that information as well. That is the way in which we shall get a much greater discipline in the control of long-term expenditure than we have ever seen in the past. Perhaps that is the second most important aspect of our recommendations.
I should have thought that not the borrowing requirement control of long-term expenditure was exactly what the Treasury wanted. We thought that it would help the Treasury. We thought that it would play into its hands against the spending Departments, and that it could say to the Departments, "You must look at the matter more carefully because that it was what the House is demanding." It is therefore strange that the Treasury Bench has rejected such suggestions.
I am sorry that I have had to be so critical of the Minister's speech, but I would be more than dishonest if I did not put forward my views as strongly as I have done. The matter is of the greatest importance. I only hope that we can ensure that at least the Minister will give stronger consideration to rethinking those two points than the Treasury has done in the past.

12.1 2 am

Dr. Jeremy Bray: The hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), like the hon. Member for Tiverton, (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), has shown that there is a promising, bubbling Back-Bench revolt on the way. On such occasions that always adds an element of jollity that is welcome at this time of night.
The right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) is to be congratulated. Finance is deadly dull stuff. Financial procedure is the end of the world. For the right hon. Gentleman to have laboured through long Committee study and to present the report in the way that he did to an interested House, with more hon. Members present at this time than there often are during the day, is a credit to the right hon. Gentleman and his Committee.
The Financial Secretary, by his complete dismissal of the work and detailed recommendations of the Committee, laid the seeds of the revolt. The Chancellor, by his departure, fertilised those seeds. The reform of financial procedures usually takes place by agreement across the Floor of the House, which does not always necessarily embrace every member of the Government Front Bench. One instance with which I was involved, now part of the


useful "Do it yourself' kit that the Chancellor referred to in the autumn statement—the mini-Budget kit—is the Industry Act schedule that I was responsible for moving in 1975. It was carried by Labour Back Benchers, against the then Government, and with the support of the Conservative Opposition. We may find that such a development is needed to break through on some of the important issues that the House has debated tonight.
The political circumstances in which change takes place and in which change is needed have to be thought about on all questions of procedure. Financial procedures may not matter very much when there is a large majority and a confident Government in control of the House, but with a hung Parliament or a comatose Government—I am not suggesting that the present Government are yet comatose —the way in which resolutions arise on the Floor of the House can be critical in determining the outcome. In such circumstances, the more logical procedure set out by the Select Committee on Procedure (Finance) would make for much better government than the archaic, arbitrary and inefficient ways in which we work at the moment. It may not make any great difference when the Government think that they can get the votes when they need them, and put matters right. The Labour Government were defeated in 1976 in the debate on the public expenditure White Paper, for example, but shrugged off that defeat and carried on.
However, a problem definitely arises if the Government do not have a controlling majority and cannot put things right later on. In such a case, the green Budget, with a fairly firm cutting edge — a degree of commitment—could prevent the emergence of some stupid situations.
I strongly support the proposal for long-term projects. The hon. Member for Honiton outlined the circumstances in which he might get this through, despite Government opposition. He referred to paragraph 144 of the report and the use of Estimates days. It is obviously possible for an incipient long-term project to appear in an Estimate—a project which the procedurists do not like being there, all sewn up without commitment for the future, and which perhaps is unpopular in itself with another section of Government Members and with the Opposition. That might compel the Government to introduce the long-term procedure as outlined by the Committee as the only way of getting their proposal through the House.
That possibility will be considered carefully by the Select Committee. The Financial Secretary has not considered how the Select Committees will operate in relation to the Estimates days. They have now been given the additional incentive to add to the use of the Estimates days the introduction of the long-term procedure. That will need the detailed attention of both sides of the House, and if there is an initiative from the Government Back Benches the Opposition will give careful consideration to supporting it.
The other recommendations of the Committee are either old friends, or suggestions that I cannot support so enthusiastically. The improvement in the form of the Estimates and the Taxes Management Bill have been heard about before, and will probably be heard about again and again before they are properly embodied in our procedures.
On the question of a Taxes Management Bill, it might be helpful to take note of the experience of the Law Commission. Its useful work in no way derogates from the

powers of the House and brings under fully professional study the messes that the law can get into. It puts forward proposals that can then be considered first, perhaps, in another place—or, if they refer to financial matters, just in this House — and made the basis for a sensibly planned reform. The Financial Secretary moved towards that in his reference to exposure drafts, which was wholly welcome. The difference is that the exposure drafts are likely to be produced by the Treasury or the Inland Revenue whereas a tax commission would be an independent body, aiming not to alter the substance but to improve the effectiveness of the law. Such is our track record on the reform of financial procedures that we shall have to go through two or three Parliaments before the tax commission is on the stocks.
I flatly oppose the statutory control of borrowing. The hon. Member for Honiton did not understand the point made by the Financial Secretary. The Treasury does not have the information that the hon. Member was seeking. It does not know what options will be exercised by major taxpayers — for example, the oil companies over petroleum revenue tax— which can enormously affect the outturn of the borrowing requirement. It does not know what changes will be made to interest rates, which can make billions of pounds of difference to the outturn of the borrowing requirement.
Those matters are not economically important, and there is a good explanation in the original presentation of the medium-term financial strategy as to why the borrowing requirement is a silly variable to write on tablets of stone. To expect the Government to nail their flag to a statutory commitment on the borrowing requirement would be utterly to confuse and muddle not just the markets—it would certainly do that—but the conduct of sensible government.
By imposing certain limits on borrowing, whether or not it be central Government borrowing under the PSBR, there would be other aspects of Parliament's intentions that would thereby have to be frustrated. There is a fundamental difference in principle between parliamentary control of expenditure and taxation and the borrowing requirement. One borrows today and pays back tomorrow, or in 25 years' time. What is 25 years in the life of this place? It is not a once and for all transaction. The control of taxation and expenditure is fundamentally different from the essential basis of parliamentary financial procedures.

Sir Peter Emery: Why does the hon. Gentleman think that it is possible for it to happen in the United States Congress, meeting all the difficulties that the hon. Gentleman has outlined, but that it would be impossible for the House of Commons?

Dr. Bray: We can learn a great many things from the United States, but predictability of the outturn of budgetary control is not one of them. The chaos in Congress and Washington whenever Congress gets anywhere near debating the budget makes every member of the Executive there long for the Westminster model.
The Committee recommended approval of the EFLs. I do not believe that that is necessary. I am not sure that the control of the EFLs is an effective way to manage the nationalised industries. With the privatisation that is taking place, the nationalised industries have a number of major assets, often land, which they have ready to dispose


at the end of the financial year. They can either bring forward or delay the disposal of the land to rig the EFL so that it comes out right. One does not want to overweight the importance attached to the EFLs. The Government have already gone too far in their estimate on the EFLs instead of the more important aspects of nationalised industry management.
I know that the Financial Secretary has thought a great deal about that matter. He made a notable speech on the control of the public sector which excelled by many degrees of outrage and scandal what he said tonight, but we are not debating that on this occasion.
The approval of the public expenditure planning total is artificial. It is one of those indicators which, when allowed to become non-operational, is a useful thing to study. The moment that it acquired any procedural significance 1001 coaches and horses could be driven through it. It would not mean a thing. It cannot be covered by the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service defining in advance what should be included in the total. There would be many ways round any definition that was produced, particularly from outside Government.
The report is one of a continuing series. I hope that in this Parliament the emphasis will be on the successful operations of the notable advances in procedures that have been made by the series of Select Committees in the last Parliament and that in the vigorous prosecution of the work of the Select Committees we shall see very useful and important advance in the financial procedures of the House during the remainder of this Parliament.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: I join all hon. Members who have strongly criticised the fact that such an important debate is taking place at this unearthly hour, bearing in mind that the Government have had the report since 11 May. The Government have managed to find time for a lot of dreary matters because they were what they wanted to discuss. I criticise that only to the extent that the Government's task is to govern and Parliament's task is to inquire, to advise and to consent. The difference between Government and Parliament is profound and important.
Every modern Government—the present Government are no exception — take more and more executive power, grab more and more to themselves and look upon Parliament more and more as that wretched nuisance at the other end of Whitehall. The debate should have been considered to be more important because the report attempts to redress to some extent the balance that has been eroded and will continue to be eroded because Governments will not give. Parliament's duty is to try to take so that a balance can be maintained.
To take a subject in which I have an interest, local government, every Bill that has been introduced since 1979 had one object, to take more and more power to Government and more and more power away from the people we represent. We must be taken more seriously.
It was good of the Financial Secretary to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) five times on his distinguished chairmanship. It is a little like Emerson's comment, "The more he protests his honesty, the quicker I hide the silver." I often think that the same comment applies in the House. The more people are praised for their work, the more certain that very little

will come from it. In the debate a lot of thanks and cosmetic bits and pieces have emerged, but little of substance.
Coming to the items that I thought were of profound importance, first, on nationalised industries, if I understand the Financial Secretary correctly, we do pretty well already. I was not aware of that. It seems that there will be no concessions there.
If Parliament is to be anything except a talking shop, the House must have amendable motions and be able to put pressure on Government. I refer here not to this Government which obviously I support, but to Governments that the Opposition would not support or to Governments that Conservative Members in Opposition would not support. Hon. Members are meant to be the balance as parliamentarians, not just the voting fodder, which is how Governments clearly regard all Members of Parliament. The House has to carve out for Parliament and for the electorate something worth while to act as a true balance between the tyrannies of Governments and the freedom of Members of Parliament.
We shall get nothing on the subject of the nationalised industries. That is no surprise, but I warn hon. Members that if we do not take it we shall not be given it. It is also a sensible suggestion that at least once a year we should examine projects that are put forward. How many Concordes lurk in Ministers' minds? How many such projects will start and grow and cost only £20 million, or perhaps £200 million, or even £500 million? If we did what the Committee suggests, of course embarrassment would be caused to Government, but it is right for Parliament to embarrass the Government of the day, and the Government do not have to fall because somebody says "You have made a right mess of that."
It is clear that local government will end up being the Aunt Sally of the democratic process because of being 0·06 per cent. overspent, when Governments are often 20 per cent. over target here and there. Nevertheless, 0·06 per cent. overspent on public expenditure means that the Government will take dictatorial powers and be the majority voter on every council throughout the land. We are here to see that that sort of thing does not happen because every citizen loses part of his or her liberty when Government grab it and Parliament does not defend it. What is sought in the report for local government are small concessions that should be granted.
I hope that the report will not gather dust. It is no good criticising the present Government just because the Labour party is in opposition. It is up to us to see that this modest report, which has tremendous implications for Parliament to examine what the Administration do, comes to life. If it is left to Government, it will gather dust like all reports that suggest that the Executive should give up not aeons of their power but a little here and there. We support the Government, but in the end we are here to defend the people and the views that we hold. We should not fear somebody saying, "He is causing trouble again." If we are not here to cause some trouble, we have no reason to be here.

Mr. Terry Davis: I approach this debate with some trepidation and the report with even more trepidation because every Labour Member who served throughout the period of the Committee lost


his seat at the general election. I hope that that was a coincidence and not a consequence of service on the Committee.
The House is grateful to all those who served on the Committee—those who were defeated at the election and those who survived—for the time that they spent—40 sessions in total—under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins). As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) pointed out, the Financial Secretary congratulated the right hon. Member for Worthing on five occasions during his speech. I shall congratulate him only once, but he may be consoled by the thought that I shall probably agree with him in more of the recommendations than did his hon. Friend.
It should not go unnoticed that the right hon. Member for Worthing and Mr. Michael English attended every session of the Committee, and therefore they undertook a great task on behalf of the House. The whole Committee is to be congratulated on the thoroughness with which it examined our financial procedures.
We should also express our appreciation of the careful and detailed exposition of the Government's attitude that we received from the Financial Secretary. I look forward with great interest to his further comments if he succeeds in catching your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish that he had been more flexible and forthcoming about some of the recommendations. I am sure I am speaking for everyone on both sides of the House when I tell him that he says "No" in the nicest possible way. It would not be unfair to describe his position as being willing to give much more information to the House but unwilling to give any more authority or control of expenditure or revenue.
In regard to control over borrowing, I thought the Minister's explanation of the practical difficulties was convincing, and I agree with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray). The answer to the point made by the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) in his intervention concerning the experience in the United States of America was given by Mr. Bruce-Gardyne, as he then was, on 29 June 1982. I am referring specifically to the answer received by the hon. Member for Honiton to question number 370 in the proceedings.
The Financial Secretary was less convincing in his comments on the recommendations for control over non-Supply expenditure. Although he told us that the Government are willing to provide more information about the expenditure of public corporations, he is not willing to allow a debate about the finances of the nationalised industries because, I suspect, this is what would happen if we adopted the recommendation of the Select Committee to require a motion of the House to approve external financing limits of the nationalised industries. The Select Committee may be concerned that all borrowing by nationalised industries is on public credit. In practice, a debate on any such motion would become a vehicle for a debate about the performance and policies of the nationalised industries. I would regard any such debate as a welcome increase in the accountability of public corporations to the public through their elected representatives in Parliament. Therefore, I welcome that recommendation of the Select Committee.
As for the recommendations about the rate support grant, I suspect that the Government's reasons for resisting these recommendations are slightly different. Here it is not local government which would be brought to account in the House of Commons; it would be the Government themselves. If there is one thing that the Government must fear more than anything else, it is the public exposure of their treatment of local government, as we have just heard from the hon. Member for Selly Oak.
Then we come to the recommendations that are designed by the Select Committee to improve parliamentary consideration of public expenditure as a whole. Again, the Financial Secretary is in favour of providing more information—on an annual basis at least—but he does not want to run the risk of being forced to defend the Government's policies at the Dispatch Box at more frequent intervals than once a year.
On the other hand, I am somewhat concerned about the inner thinking behind the reference in the recommendation to
serious divergence from original plans.
The right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) drew attention to the difference between the two sides of the House about public expenditure. I would regard a serious divergence from original plans as including underspending as well as overspending, but I am not clear from the proceedings of the Committee whether that was its intention. There should also be an opportunity for debate at the request of the Opposition as well as at the request of the Select Committee.
I am even more concerned about the reference to the debate on the autumn statement being deferred until January to allow time for the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee to report to the House on the statement. On this point I disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). It may well be that the Opposition want a debate to take place much more quickly, as happened this year. Therefore, we would want the date for this debate to be arranged, as now, through the usual channels.
Of course, it would be helpful to the House to have the benefit of the report from the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee and, even more, to have the benefit of the evidence taken by the Committee. That evidence would be even more valuable if it were taken on a public expenditure White Paper rather than on the autumn statement, but the House cannot allow the Committee to have a stranglehold over the timetable. That is the way the recommendation appears to be worded.
There have been several references to procedures in the United States of America. I would regret the introduction into our procedures of a veto or blocking mechanism by a Select Committee of the House that could prevent the House as a whole debating or discussing any issue including public expenditure.

Dr. Bray: If my hon. Friend examines the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee's record during the previous Parliament in detail he will find that, far from strangling the timetable of the House, it was almost strangled by it on many occasions and it put in much fast work to ensure that the timetable of the House was not dislocated.

Mr. Davis: I am sorry if I upset my hon. Friend. I was not criticising the way in which the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee worked during the previous


Parliament. I was criticising the recommendations of the Select Committee on Procedure because it seems clear that its recommendation would make it impossible for the House to debate the autumn statement until the Treasury and Civil Service Committee had taken evidence and presented its report to the House.
I am arguing for more flexibility. I want the Opposition to be able to negotiate with the Government through the usual channels to obtain a debate earlier than January. Otherwise there would be a delay of two months before we were able to debate the autumn statement. If we adopt the recommendation as it stands, we would block that ability to debate the autumn statement at an earlier date. If the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee decided to delay its report, the debate on the autumn statement would be delayed still further. I am asking only for the maximum flexibility and expressing reservations about that one aspect of the recommendation. I welcome the continuing practice of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee in taking evidence on the details of the Public Expenditure White Paper. That is a different point.
I have some disagreement with the right hon. Member for Taunton about the work of other Select Committees. It is one thing to allow Select Committees to appoint Subcommittees as the hon. Member for Honiton put it, and it is quite another to insist that they do so or insist that they examine the Government's public expenditure plans for a Department. Imposing a burden on departmental Select Committees to undertake work that they do not want to undertake would be a retrograde step. It would be wrong if the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee were regarded as in any way controlling the work of or setting the priorties for other Select Committees.
The right hon Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said that the Select Committee on Procedure, when considering its proposals, leaned on the Select Committees. The phrase "to lean on" someone or something has a popular connotation. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman did not mean it in that way. That would be to take his remarks out of context. Nevertheless, I would regard it as wrong if the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee were able to "lean" on other Select Committees
If I have reservations about that recommendation, I warmly welcome the rest of the Procedure Committee's recommendations. I include in that welcome the Taxes Management Bill. It was clear from what theFinancial Secretary to the Treasury said that the Government would not accept that recommendation. That is regrettable. It also represents a change of attitude from the time when the Select Committee took evidence.
The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) told us that it was not consistent with the evidence that was given to the Select Committee by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, now the Foreign Secretary. I examined the evidence and found that on 25 January 1983 in reply to question 885, the then Chancellor said:
What I should like is for the House to be presented, if not with my proposal then with some options from which the House and the Government could make a choice.
That seems very reasonable. I regret that the Government have changed their attitude and will not give us the chance to choose between options and to choose whether to have a Taxes Management Bill.
There is an advantage in having more than one Finance Bill each year. I seem to remember that Conservative Members used to complain when a Labour Chancellor had more than one Finance Bill in a year.
At least some Conservative Members are now converted to the idea of examining taxation more frequently.
My strongest criticism of the Treasury's attitude is its response to the recommendation about long-term projects. That is the most interesting and important of all the recommendations of the Select Committee. We are concerned with long-term decisions that have been taken by all Governments in secret. They have implications for public expenditure for many years ahead and pre-empt future resources. The hon. Member for Honiton told us that business will always look more closely at long-term projects, and that the Committee was suggesting only that the Treasury should adopt the practice of industry. From my experience as an auditor, I have learnt that the control of long-term projects in industry and business has not always been effective.

Sir Peter Emery: The hon. Gentleman may be right, but I did refer to efficient industry.

Mr. Davis: I have worked only in efficient industries.
I do not envisage that the House or a Select Committee would examine individual hospitals, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) suggested. Of course, each hospital is very important, but the vitally important decisions would concern, for example, new weapons systems. As the hon. Member for Selly Oak said, overspending on such projects is far more serious than the amount of overspending by local government.
The response of the Financial Secretary to that recommendation, when he said that it was not appropriate to introduce new procedures, was the weakest part of his remarks. I hope that he will reconsider the Treasury's attitude to that recommendation. It would be worth while having an experiment. There is no better time for that than at the beginning of a Parliament. I accept the point made clearly by the right hon. Member for Down, South about too many experiments causing procedural indigestion, but there is a case for experiments being introduced at the beginning of a Parliament. There is no better time, especially when the Government have such a large majority. As my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell., South said, better financial procedures are most important when a Government have a large majority. The Government should be able to withstand such scrutiny when they have a majority of more than 100.
I offer my sympathy to the Financial Secretary, who has a difficult task. He presented his brief very well. But I agree with the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) that the burden of the Financial Secretary's comments was that the recommendations were inconvenient for the Government. Although I have sympathy with the Financial Secretary, I have much more sympathy with the right hon. Member for Worthing and his Committee. If he chooses to press the matter to a Division, there will be a free vote among Labour Members, but I shall advise my hon. Friends to join the right hon. Gentleman in the Lobby.

Mr. Moore: I thank the House for allowing me to speak again.
I recognise the points raised from both sides of the House, especially those made in the past five or 10 minutes. Opposition is always a cleansing virtue to some aspects of one's mind and mental frame. I know that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) will be having lengthy discussions with his hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) about the intricacies and the problems associated with government as opposed to opposition.
I accept the rebuke of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) for being over-complimentary to my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins). I meant it. If I said it five times, it may mean that I have made it more difficult for my right hon. Friend and his Committee. I was trying to say that all hon. Members recognise how inordinately great a task was performed by the Chairman of the Committee. Having said that, and recognising the work of all hon. Members on the Committee, that does not mean that the Government, whichever party is in office, must by definition accept the proposals of the Committee.
If in any way I inconvenienced the House — I especially apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) — by seeking to intervene early as well as late in the debate, I apologise. It would be surprising if a Government who, as my hon. Friend the Member for Selly Oak said, had had sight of a substantive, important and key report for something in excess of six months had not in that period come forward with some measured views as a recognition of the serious and contentious nature of the report. The Government had to consider it with care. Those hon. Members who have had the privilege of serving in government will be aware that no one denies the Government's right to listen carefully to matters of such significance, as I have throughout the debate; but equally it would have been a great surprise for us not to have expressed clear views from the beginning, having thought through and read thoroughly all the evidence.
I wish to deal with a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton, by the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) about what was said by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. I recognise that selected pieces of the report from paragraphs 885 to 910 can give credence to the views of my right hon. and learned Friend. I read the evidence with considerable care. There is no doubt that the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed that the Finance Bill should continue much as now but that an autumn Budget might, from time to time, be useful for introducing legislation that might otherwise be impossible.
My right hon. and learned Friend was concerned with the handling of relatively minor and essentially uncontroversial proposals, not with the major changes to procedure which were proposed by the Procedure Committee. I shall not refer to any details, but I was careful to say that we thought that there was a difference from the original speech that my right hon. and learned Friend gave to the Addington Society. We do not deny the

point that he sought to make in evidence. It was the fundamental nature of the changes proposed which the Government thought, on consideration, was wrong.

Mr. Best: My right hon. and learned Friend the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the present Foreign Secretary, said in answer to question 885, to which I drew the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery):
It may be that it will become a more ambitious thing later on if it works.
That was a reference to the ancillary Finance Bill. What does my hon. Friend think he meant by that?

Mr. Moore: I sat through the entire debate and I underlined that passage in case it was not drawn to the attention of the House. I could equally refer to parts of paragraph 887.
My right hon. and learned Friend saw merit, as appears from his evidence, in the ways in which uncontroversial tax legislation could from time to time be considered. He thought it might be possible for such an experiment to develop. No one suggests for one moment that that was not said.
The proposals that we are being asked to consider go far beyond that and create a radical and different structure that the Government, after careful consideration, cannot accept.
Several hon. Members spoke extensively about long-term project management. My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton asked for information about changing views of the costs of long-term projects. I understand the need for such information, but it was provided in considerable detail in the Estimates. I refer the House to the table at the back of the Estimates produced on the previous Budget day, which shows the data that my hon. Friend wishes to have. My hon. Friend's point also related to the way in which the Government have turned down —this is a completely different matter—the proposal that the House should have specific power to stop projects before they start.
However, if the Government gave Parliament the power to veto projects, or to delay their start until satisfied about them, Parliament would become involved in what should properly remain a managerial and executive function. There would be risks of delay, and an inevitable increase in uncertainty and in administrative cost, and in some cases there could be international repercussions which would add further complications—[Interruption.] Those who are in government must occasionally face the realities and the responsibilities of government. Some major projects would almost certainly have to be excluded from such appraisal for security reasons.
The hon. Member for Motherwell, South rightly drew the House's attention to some of the problems associated with the American method of government in this area. I remind the House that, at the end of October, the United States Senate refused a request to increase the ceiling on the United States public sector debt, although the House of Representatives had earlier approved the Administration's request for an increase from $1·389 trillion to $1·615 trillion. The uncertainty created by the Senate's refusal, together with other factors, depressed market sentiment and interest rates were pushed up. The refusal caused the American Government to run down their unusually large cash balances and to curtail their auctions of stock. The Senate later capitulated, and Congress finally agreed on 18 November—the last day


of the session—to raise the ceiling to $1·45 trillion, which should allow the American Government to continue funding their programmes until April 1984. The hon. Gentleman was right to draw the House's attention to the difficulties that flowed from such action.
The contributions to the debate from hon. Members, despite the late hour—the attendance has been remarked upon — demonstrates the value of the report. The recommendations of the report cover many aspects of the means available to Government to implement economic and financial policies, and relationships with the House. They would in total have a substantial effect on the financial procedures of the House, and some of them would change——

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: They are intended to.

Mr. Moore: I recognise my hon. Friend's point. The recommendations would change significantly the respective roles of the Executive and the House, and especially the role of the Select Committees.
In my earlier intervention, and in these closing remarks, I have tried to describe the Government's views on the report. In some cases the Government, perhaps naturally, have given greater weight than did the Committee to practical considerations. It is also right that Governments should have regard to the delicate balance, in matters of financial responsibility, between Government and Parliament that has evolved over many years and which, more recently, has successfully accommodated the valuable addition of the new departmental Select Committees. We have reached the present position not by accident but by a process of careful evolution, and by a proper regard for that balance, as the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) rightly reminded us.
The Committee's report welcomed several substantial improvements during the past few years in the Government's provision of information to Parliament. The requirements of the House change over time, and the role played by its Committees developed substantially during the past few years. The financial procedures of the House should be reviewed from time to time, and the Committee's report can be expected to lead to further worthwhile changes.
The report and this debate have been valuable. I am sure that I speak for the entire House in thanking my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing and the Committee for the work that they undertook.

Mr. Terry Davis: Again!

Mr. Moore: It is merited again. The Government have tried to respond to the report, whatever the comments and criticisms, in a similar constructive spirit.

The Lords Commissioner to the Treasury (Mr. David Hunt): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE

Ordered,
That during the proceedings on the matter of the National Health Service in Wales, the Welsh Grand Committee have leave to sit twice on the first day on which they shall meet; and that, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 67 (Meetings of standing committees), the second such sitting shall not commence before Four o'clock nor continue after the Committee have considered the matter for two hours at that sitting.—[Mir. David Hunt.]

Calke Abbey, Derbyshire

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now Adjourn.—[Mr. John Hunt.]

1 am

Mrs. Edwina Currie: I speak as a constituency Member on a matter of national importance. I shall briefly outline the history of Calke abbey in my constituency, why it is so special, what we should like to see happen to it, and what the effects are of the Government's failure to act. I remind the House that there were 29 signatories to the early-day motion on this matter.
Calke abbey stands on the site of a 12th century priory, which was destroyed at the dissolution. The land came into the Harpur family, later the Harpur-Crewes, in the 1620s, and the family has therefore had an unbroken 300-year link with this part of Derbyshire. The estate consists of some 14,000 acres in Derbyshire, Leicestershire and Staffordshire, and the family could still be called, as it was in the 18th century,
the best landed family of any commoners in this or any neighbouring county.
The house was built between 1701 and 1703 and is a splendid baroque mansion set in a lovely deer park—with two herds of deer—leading down to a small lake, with the National Trust land at Staunton Harold nearby. It is an isolated but lovely part of south Derbyshire, and within a few miles of Derby, Nottingham and other midland cities.
It was the family who gave the house its unique character. From about 200 years ago, its members adopted a reclusive way of life. Although they served as high sheriffs, and even, in three cases, as my predecessors as Members of Parliament for Derbyshire, South, they were retiring types and more than a little odd. I quote from Lady Harpur on her brother in the later 18th century:
he never would be persuaded to mix in society and marry suitably … he has no vices, and many good qualities, but will not be a man of the world.
This could as easily be true of the present family.
The previous owners this century, Sir Vauncey Harpur-Crewe and his nephew Charles, could only be described, with the best will in the world, as eccentric. Motorised vehicles were banned from the estate until 1949, electricity was not installed until 1960, and, most important of all, no visitors were allowed. This is what makes Calke so special and so unknown. Its contents have remained untouched and unchanged for the past century. It is a perfect, undisturbed time capsule, the totality of a Victorian landed gentleman's life.
The House is astonishing in the sheer volume of its items, with hobbies such as collecting stuffed birds, gemmology, hunting and horse breeding, represented. Everything is intact. The family never threw anything away. When a room was full, its members simply shut the door and moved on to another room. As one opens these doors today, one simply steps back in time.
The furnishings are exactly as they were. Strict use of Victorian loose covers means that their colours are as beautiful today as when the furniture was delivered 100 years ago. There are still the silk hangings of a four-poster bed—which were delivered in their box 200 years ago, taken out, looked at, and put back again — still as glorious in their colours as they were. Everything is still


in the same place. The entire estate is preserved just as it was, from the fire engine, to the carriages to the lamp lighters' room.
Ticknall, the village next door, is a conservation area. Everyone who visits Calke now begs for it to be saved. The house and its unique contents are a microcosm of the past, which would provide not only much information for scholars, but is a fascinating and absorbing sight for many visitors with a more general interest. It is not a great collection of Italian works of art, or a magnificent piece of architecture, but it is so quintessentially English, so unusual, so complete, that one wonders whether Government advisers are right to make any comparison with any other house; there is nothing quite like it.
The matter is now urgent, and I welcome the debate. Some years ago, a discretionary trust was created that was intended to prevent the commercialisation of Calke and to keep the estate together. The family were badly advised, although, knowing it, I doubt whether it would have listened to good advice. When Charles Harpur-Crewe died in 1981, capital transfer tax of £8 million became payable. The entire estate was entered for probate of £15 million.
The new owner, Mr. Henry Harpur-Crewe, who is technically a life tenant, had a choice. He could have sold up, paid up and pocketed the difference. He would have remained a wealthy man and the treasures of Calke would have stayed a secret, known only to a handful. Instead, he offered this extraordinary house and its contents, with a substantial acreage for its upkeep, to the Government in lieu of tax, to be handed over to the National Trust in perpetuity. The house was eventually to be opened to the public.
The house and its parkland have been recognised as being of heritage value. The National Trust is keen to have it, and it must have professional management. The council, which is Labour-controlled and not normally in agreement with me, is actively supportive. While accepting the house, its contents and heritage land, and offering substantial repairs grants — I acknowledge the offer made by my hon. Friend the Minister, and I know that he has been sympathetic—the Government have been refusing non-heritage land which would provide the essential endowment, and this refusal has wrecked the scheme.
Someone in the Department believes that it is possible for the estate to provide the endowment by itself and is no doubt asking why Government money should be provided for that purpose. But the estate sales would not provide enough money. The tax debt is now £10 million and it is rising by £1,300 a day. The extra tax that is payable through the in-lieu procedure, plus the various charges and fees, means that the total amount payable from the estate is £12·75 million out of a probate of £15 million. By anyone's arithmetic what would be left would not be enough for the National Trust to contemplate acceptance, and I understand its view. The possibility of handing over the house and selling the land would turn my constituent, Mr. Harpur-Crewe, into a pauper. It is sad that the Government appear to be saying, "Sell all thou hast and give the proceeds to the Government." This must be regarded as punitive taxation with a vengeance.
We are not talking about Government money, in any event. The tax income was a one-off benefit that was provided by a fluke. No more estates are likely to come

up in this way, especially as the Finance Act 1975 changed the rules. There is no precedent. This is a sheer windfall and it could possibly be treated as such. The Department of the Environment blames the Treasury and the Treasury says that it is an environmental responsibility. I find it so difficult to accept that a Conservative Government should so happily contemplate the break-up of a great estate and the loss of a national asset in this way. Surely to swap a tax debt for this marvellous house is a fair and reasonable exchange. We as a nation would have a priceless possession in perpetuity. It would be enjoyed by our grandchildren and our great grandchildren.
As the tax debt is mounting daily, the trustees have had to come to a decision. The entire estate is on the market except Calke Abbey, the heritage land, the village of Tickwell and the home farms, which will remain in private hands. I have hundreds of worried constituents. These tenants live in property that is being sold over their heads and I am very troubled about them. An effort will be made by the trustees to create an endowment fund to keep up the property in the lifetime of Mr. Henry Harpur-Crewe and his sister, but it will not be sufficient to maintain the house properly and it will certainly not be enough to enable the house to be open to the public. These generous and paternal landlords, who are much loved locally, will be forced to leave the rest of the estate to its own devices. The problem will recur on the death of the present incumbent, and probably on the death of his sister. That will mean that the whole business will start all over again. If nothing is done, the house will crumble, the deer will be shot and all the marvellous contents will be lost for ever. The future is indeed bleak.
I call on the Government to take this opportunity to create a major tourist attraction in an area which has very few such amenities and to create a centre of new employment in an area which has no new industries. I ask them to acknowledge the public spirit of the Harpur-Crewe family, to acquire a major public asset for the nation and to reassure all my constituents that a unique way of life will be preserved.

Mr. Esmond Bulmer: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I must repeat the view expressed by Mr. Speaker that hon. Members should not intervene in Adjournment debates except with the consent of the hon. Member who has initiated the debate and the Minister who is to reply. I gather from the nods of assent from both the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) and the Minister that they agree that the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Bulmer) may intervene.

Mr. Esmond Bulmer: My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) has eloquently described a remarkable property that I believe none of us wishes to see destroyed. The threat to it comes from the size of the capital tax bill. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister recalls the debates on capital transfer tax when it was first introduced. We recognised that it was formulated to break up any significant family property and we pledged ourselves to draw its teeth. We have not yet succeeded but we have made progress; rates are less onerous and inflation has been reduced.
The Government have constructed a maintenance fund route to secure heritage houses in return for public access,


but we cannot guarantee that it will always be taken. When it is not, the Government have surely to protect themselves from the consequences of their own actions. In this instance the means is at hand, which is to accept the non-heritage land that is offered to provide the endowment. This was done with Hardwick hall, and I fail to see why it cannot be done now. The precedent is established and I do not think that there is any evidence that the flood gates will be opened.
Failure to take this route has put my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and the chairman of the national heritage memorial fund, Lord Charteris of Amisfield, in very difficult positions. My right hon. Friend can save Calke only if he cuts his already hard-pressed budget elsewhere, and the chairman has had to choose between Belton and Calke. The National Trust, in which I declare an interest as a member of its executive committee, would like to help. If it accepts Calke, it must be with a proper endowment. The trust is not acquisitive. It accepts a heavy responsibility when it guarantees a house in perpetuity, and it has learnt the hard way that no endowment, if inflation is running above a certain level, is theoretically adequate.
The trust's estimates of the costs of saving this house and putting it into proper order have not been questioned. Following the refusal of the Treasury to accept non-heritage land as an endowment, other means of saving Calke abbey have been exhaustively explored for more than two years, including finding tenants for part of the house and stables, endowment for the park only, transfer to another charitable trust, setting up a family maintenance trust, obtaining a part endowment from the family, and altering the family trust through court order. It cannot be too strongly emphasised that, after seeking expert advice, all these alternatives have proved to be ineffective or impractical. In particular, it is a misconception that, after paying the outstanding tax, the family trustees would have adequate funds to set up a maintenance trust. They have conclusively demonstrated that they could not do so.
The chairman of the national heritage memorial fund, in a letter to The Times, a copy of which he sent to me, said:
To date, the National Heritage Memorial Fund has been invited to consider contributing to one solution only for Calke Abbey. Are there no other ways to save Calke? Is this not a case when a wider partnership of interests, including Government, National Trust, Historic Buildings Council, local authorities, the Harpur-Crewe Trustees as well as ourselves, could achieve the objective which all your correspondents are seeking? For our part, and within our available resources, we are ready to consider any possibilities.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will wish to explore this and other possible ways forward. He should bear in mind the fact that many people would be saved much trouble, which may in the end not bear fruit, if he persuaded his colleagues in the Treasury to accept the Hardwick route. It is what every good solution to a problem should be—quick, clean and certain.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Neil Macfarlane): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) on bringing this matter to the attention of the House. The issues are complex, and I am grateful for the opportunity to put the Government's position on the record. In recent weeks, some random arguments have been put forward, which I do not believe are entirely accurate.
Since her election to represent Derbyshire, South my hon. Friend has taken considerable interest in this case, and rightly so, since, as she has pointed out, it affects many of her constituents who are tenants of the Harpur-Crewe estate, as well as the future of Calke abbey.
The Government do not dissent from the view that Calke abbey is an important building and one of considerable historical and architecural interest. It is listed grade 1 and it is set in attractive parkland. Its unique character is due very much to the survival of contents and furnishings, that have remained untouched and undisturbed for generations. Those qualities undoubtedly are of significant interest, but one may question some of the more extravagant claims that have recently been made for Calke.
It has been said that Calke abbey has tremendous potential as a tourist attraction, but the house has never been open to the general public. It has been said that the attractions of Calke are equal to those of the best houses currently open to the public, but to some that seems excessive. It is the "time capsule" quality that has attracted many of those who have written about Calke, but Mat is a fragile commodity. There must be questions about the ease with which the interiors of the house could be presented to any large numbers of visitors.
This is a case which, at the end of the day, must be judged by reference to priorities and the availability of resources. Those are considerations that often seem to get overlooked by some in the heritage world who believe that somehow there can be some sort of absolute priority for each and every case.
In this case, it has been represented that the proposals made by the Harpur-Crewe trustees represent the only method by which Calke can be saved for the future. Furthermore, it is said that the onus is on the Government to act and that they must act now to save Calke otherwise it will be lost for ever. We do not accept either of those premises and it is, in our view, open to the trustees, if they are willing, to develop viable alternative approaches that could, with some more limited public assistance secure the future preservation of Calke. That is certainly what we want to see.
Nor can we accept that, because the trustees are the victims of some sort of so-called "technicality", we should put things right retrospectively with the stroke of a pen. I do not like to think where that line of argument would lead. Bending the law to fit difficult cases is not, and never has been an acceptable way for any Government to proceed. We are where we are. The trustees' proposals call for the allocation of large sums of public money and they must be considered in that light.
Before I develop some of the arguments further, it may be helpful to review briefly the background to the present situation. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South has touched on it. The late Mr. Harpur-Crewe, who had been the life tenant of the estate and resident at Calke abbey since 1949, died in March 1981. Since the trustees had not made any provision otherwise. Mr. Harpur-Crewe's death gave rise to a very large capital transfer tax bill which became due just over two years ago, in October 1981. It was not until the end of April 1982 that the trustees submitted to the Inland Revenue their formal proposal to settle the tax bill by an offer of property in lieu of tax. In view of the size and complexity of the estate, the need to come to terms with changed circumstances and to make assessments and appraisals, it is perhaps


understandable that it should have taken the trustees some 13 months to make their offer. Until that time, however, the trustees had not consulted my Department or the Inland Revenue about their proposals; although it seems that they had already sought the views and advice of the National Trust.
The estate's holdings are very large indeed; apart from Calke abbey and the thousand or so acres of parkland immediately adjoining it, they have some 9,000 acres of land in Staffordshire, Derbyshire and Leicestershire, for the most part let to agricultural tenants,and also about 3,000 acres of moorland in the Staffordshire Peak District.
The proposals made by the trustees in April 1982 were that the Inland Revenue should accept in lieu of tax the heritage property — Calke abbey together with its contents and adjoining parkland and also the moorland in Staffordshire. In addition, the trustees proposed that as much of the other property—that is the agricultural land — should be accepted as was needed to settle the remainder of the tax bill and that this property could then be used to provide an endowment and a source of capital for the future preservation of Calke abbey.
On the basis of the trustees' provisional assessments at that time, the tax was likely to be million to £8 million and they would need to offer the greater part of the agricultural estate in addition to the heritage property to settle the bill for tax and accumulated interest.
The trustees clearly had it in mind that, once accepted, Calke abbey would be given by the Government to the National Trust, although they did not make that a condition of the offer. From the point of view of the trustees and the National Trust the offer of the agricultural property no doubt seemed a simple mechanism for paying the tax bill and at the same time providing the trust with an endowment to secure the future of Calke.
My Department and the Inland Revenue made it clear to the trustees' solicitor at an early stage that the proposition was anything but straightforward. Indeed, at the Department's suggestion, it was proposed to the trustees and accepted by them that it would be sensible to proceed with the offer of the Staffordshire moorland separately from the offer of Calke and the endowment land since the issues involved were more straightforward and it should therefore be possible to process more quickly.
In April this year the trustees were informed that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had agreed in principle that he would recommend to the Inland Revenue that Calke abbey, its contents and parkland, be accepted in lieu of tax subject to suitable arrangements being made for its future maintenance and preservation. The trustees were also informed that the Secretary of State could not agree to recommend acceptance of the non-heritage land offered by the trustees and therefore that if Calke abbey were to be transferred to the National Trust some other means would have to be found to raise the endowment they would require. At the same time the National Trust was also informed of these decisions.
It is important that we should all be clear about what is meant in this context by the expression "non-heritage land". We are talking here about 7,000 or 8,000 acres of land, much of it not even contiguous with Calke but made up of various holdings in Derbyshire, Leicestershire and

Staffordshire. The majority of this land is let to agricultural tenants but also included were various tenanted houses, cottages, pubs, small holdings and so on.
The trustees made no claims for the scenic or amenity values of the property and offered it only as a convenient means of providing an endowment. The Government were really being asked to acquire thousands of acres of agricultural land and hundreds of separately tenanted dwellings and then to hand it all to the National Trust to deal with as it saw fit in the interests of providing income and capital for the preservation of Calke abbey.
It certainly took some time to reach the decision that I have referred to—just under 12 months, rather than 18 months as some have stated. However, that is a reflection of the unusual and complex nature and also the magnitude of what the trustees had proposed.
During the months from May 1982 to April 1983 a considerable amount of detailed appraisal was necessary. We had to proceed from a position where virtually nothing was known about Calke and the estate's land holdings. Naturally, we sought the recommendation of the Historic Buildings Council, our advisers in these matters. There were consultations with the National Trust about the offer and its endowment requirements should Calke be transferred to it. My Department was also in regular contact with the trustees' solicitors.
The recommendation of the Historic Buildings Council was that Calke abbey together with its contents and essential adjoining land was of a quality to merit acceptance, and the Secretary of State did not dissent from that recommendation. It also agreed that it would be appropriate to transfer Calke to the ownership of the National Trust for future preservation in the interests of the public.
The National Trust stated that its requirements were for an endowment of some £4·1 million and a capital fund of £3·6 million to finance repairs and other works connected with opening the property to the public. As I said earlier, it was the hope of both the trustees and the National Trust that those sums could be provided if the Government accepted the trustees' offer of other property in lieu of tax that would then be given to the National Trust to use as a source of capital and income.
Our position has remained absolutely clear over the past eight months — we are not prepared to use the "acceptance in lieu" mechanism as a means of providing endowment funds for the National Trust or any other body. This is not a matter of empty dogma; there are in fact perfectly sensible reasons for taking the view that we do, which I will come to in a few moments. The point that I wish to make is that the trustees—and the National Trust — have been fully aware of the Government's decision on that point since April this year, and our position has not altered.
The National Trust approached the national heritage memorial fund, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Bulmer) referred, to see if the fund could provide it with financial assistance for Calke. The trustees of the fund did not feel able to afford the scale of assistance required for the sort of scheme envisaged by the National Trust. They had, in fact, been approached by the National Trust at about the same time for assistance to enable the trust to acquire Belton house in Lincolnshire and the trustees of the funds agreed to provide some £8 million for that purpose.
In the ensuing months from April until the present time discussions have continued between the solicitors acting for the trustees and officials of my Department and of the Inland Revenue in an attempt to find an alternative solution acceptable to all sides. We have made it clear all along that we would look at any proposal from the trustees that was significantly different from their original scheme.
At the end of October this year the solicitors wrote to my Department informing us that sales of estate property would soon have to proceed and that, to quote the letter
if no alternative solution can be achieved by the anticipated auction date, it is inevitable that Calke will be lost forever to the Nation".
Dramatic words indeed. However, as I said earlier and as I hope I made clear in the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South on 24 November, we do not accept that full Government funding of the entire cost of preserving Calke represents the only option.
It may assist if I now explain in a little more detail why we decided that the acceptance in lieu mechanism should not be used to accept endowment property in the way suggested by the trustees.
First, I think that there has been some suggestion that somehow there is no real cost to the Government in accepting property in lieu of tax. While it is no doubt true that the occurrence of deaths and other events giving rise to capital transfer tax charges cannot be predicted, it would be wrong to regard each cm- bill as a windfall to the Government. Taking one year with another, the total CTT take will not vary greatly. Therefore, when the Government choose to forgo tax by instead accepting property that they then give to another body, they are incurring a real resource cost just as if they were spending cash on the same activity; furthermore, accepting property in lieu of tax hypothecates revenue to particular causes, and that, too, is a decision about priorities in the use of resources.
Second, there are only limited resources available for accepting property in lieu of tax. The cost of all acceptances is met jointly from the Votes of my Department and the Office of Arts and Libraries. The Vote provision is currently £2 million per year, and that has so far proved sufficient to meet the offers of heritage property that we have wished to accept. To the extent that it is not adequate, it would of course be possible to increase the provision by some reallocation of resources from other programmes. While we might be willing to do that to facilitate the acceptance of some exceptionally important item of heritage property, there is no case for doing so now, even if the funds were available, to enable the non-heritage land offered by the Harpur-Crewe trustees to be accepted.
The arrangements for heritage funding were significantly improved and modified by the National Heritage Act 1980. The Act abolished the national land fund, the residual assets of which were used to provide an initial endowment for the national heritage memorial fund created as an independent trustee body by the Act. In addition, the legislation provided for the Secretary of State and the Minister with responsibility for the arts to make grants to the national heritage memorial fund and, separately, to provide the resources for accepting property in lieu of tax.
The heritage fund was given unique powers to hold capital and earn interest on balances. Thus it was the national heritage memorial fund that was created with the

powers and capability to act as a contingency reserve for heritage causes; the acceptance-in-lieu machinery was intended simply for the acceptance of heritage quality property. Decisions about priorities are never easy. In the case of Calke abbey, the trustees of the fund did not then feel that they could afford the sums requested by the National Trust, given the other demands then before them, including the trust's request for support with the acquisition of Belton.
The introduction of those new and much improved arrangements in 1980—particularly the creation of the national heritage memorial fund which has rightly won much praise for its work— is the answer to those who tell us that there is a precedent for what is proposed for Calke in the arrangements adopted for Hardwick hall some 25 years ago to which my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest referred.
The 1980 National Heritage Act is only one of a number of measures that demonstrate the importance that the Government attach to the heritage. We have also made significant improvements in the system of capital tax exemptions for heritage property, and introduced tax incentives to encourage owners to establish maintenance funds for the preservation of historic houses. It is a harsh fact, however, that no Government, however well-disposed, can offer an open-ended commitment to provide resources for the heritage. The total cost to the Government of the Harpur-Crewe trustees' proposal could be of the order of £9 or £10 million.
The Government are willing to contribute significantly. We have indicated that Calke itself could in principle he accepted in lieu of tax at a cost of the order of £2 million, and that significant grant aid could be available through the usual channels to assist with the cost of repairs and other works to enable the house to be shown to the public. We continue to believe that the trustees themselves could make a contribution to securing the future of Calke.
The trustees have cast doubt on whether the residue of the estate, after the payment of tax, would be sufficient to establish a maintenance fund to secure the future of Calke in perpetuity. That must depend on the size of fund that would be needed, the price they will get for sales to meet the tax bill, and so on. It is not something that can be known with certainty. The trustees' original offer undoubtedly represented considerable advantages for them. Not only would they achieve the laudable aim of securing the future of Calke, but they would also be settling the whole of the tax bill in one single huge transaction which would be much more straightforward, as well as being financially more beneficial to the estate, than a multitude of separate sales.
The solicitor for the trustees has produced the ingenious argument that their proposals do no more than to achieve what could have been done through the conditional exemption and maintenance fund route, had they acted before the death of the late Mr. Harpur-Crewe. But the fact is that—for whatever reason—the estate did not make any proper plans or provision for financing the future maintenance and preservation of Calke and at Mr. Harpur-Crewe's death they found themselves confronting a huge tax bill. Other considerations apart, there are many owners who have taken considerable trouble to secure the future of their houses and we are anxious to persuade others of the importance of doing so. It would be inconsistent and


even unfair if we were now to "correct" the situation at Calke by providing for its future maintenance and preservation entirely at public expense.
The Government are willing to consider any alternative proposals that the trustees can put forward. I have already explained why the original proposals are unacceptable. If, however, the trustees, the national heritage memorial fund or some consortium of interested bodies could between them develop a significantly different approach within the

parameters that I have set out, we shall consider it constructively. It might be helpful if the various interested parties could get together to consider what real alternatives there might be. The Government are prepared and willing to listen and to consider positive suggestions from the various parties concerned. I hope that such suggestions will be made as soon as possible.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past One o'clock.